Twin Cities Conservative

FAIL: Oh that impeccable IPCC!!!

2010-04-22T11:46:00.001-07:00

Add another notch in the 2007 IPCC report on global warming...

HotAir reports that yet another of the claims issued by the IPCC has been essentially refuted. This time, it pertains to a claim that Bangladesh would face a refugee crisis and loss of coastline due to a three-foot sea level rise by 2050.

You see, the scientists forgot to note the impending counteraction of sedimentary deposits flowing from the Himalayas.

FAIL.

AGAIN.

HotAir has a nice summation of the claims refuted in the IPCC report, consisting of the following:

* University of East Anglia e-mails that exposed data destruction, attempts to hide contradictory data, and conspiracies to sabotage the work of skeptical scientists
* The East Anglia CRU threw out their raw data, undermining any effort to check their work
* NOAA/GHCN “homogenization” falsified climate declines into increases
* East Anglia CRU’s below-standard computer modeling
* No rise in atmospheric carbon fraction over the last 150 years: University of Bristol
* IPCC withdraws claim that AGW will wipe out Himalayan glaciers by 2035
* IPCC chief Rajendra Pachauri knew Himalayan claim was bogus for months before exposure
* Amazonian rainforest conclusions not based on scientific research but on advocacy group claims
* Mountain glacier claims based on unsubstantiated student theses and anecdotes from climber magazine
* Search of IPCC report footnotes exposes ten more student dissertations presented as peer-reviewed research
* Medieval Warming Period temperatures may have been global, undermining entire AGW case
* Measurements used for AGW case were influenced by urbanization, poor location, bad data sets
* African-crop claims exposed as false
* IPCC researchers excluded Southern Hemisphere data to exaggerate effects of warming on hurricanes
* Hurricane claims further exposed as false by actual peer-reviewed research — including by some AGW researchers
* Major scientific group concludes IPCC-linked researchers “complicit in the alleged scientific malpractices“
* NASA data less reliable than faulty UEA CRU data

Happy Earth Day, comrades!

2010-04-22T08:28:00.002-07:00

On behalf of the unhinged liberal establishment, I'd like to extend a very Happy Earth Day to you all!

Let’s celebrate by reducing our standard of living and returning to the romantic pre-Industrial Revolution era, where mortality rates were significantly higher, where we weren’t hindered by pesky energy, where medical innovations still consisted of “leeches” and “blood letting.”

A world where false climate data is trumpeted as true in the name of political fascism and increased taxation. A world where alternative energy means wasting billions but still freezing to death even though there are billions of calories of energy just waiting for the taking. A meatless world where malnutrition awaits to deform our children and shorten our lifespans. A world where progress means going backwards and is applauded and saluted. Da, there is much good news on this Earth Day.

Symposium: tax/medicare cuts, and the legality of taxes

2010-04-20T10:55:00.001-07:00

Todd and CodLiverOilGuy first discuss Dear Leader mocking the Tea Party and their ungratefulness towards his supposed "tax breaks;" the discussion then transitions to the upcoming Medicare cuts due to the health care, ahem, reform bill (thanks liberals), and finally to the legalized robbery that is taxes.

Todd: I came across this article; wow, what a fool this man is…guaranteed taxes WILL go up, won’t they? I would love to see campaign ads with his statement followed by statistics, facts, etc regarding increased taxes, plus the almost-certain VAT that’s forthcoming…

“Via Dan Riehl, this may well be the single most obnoxious soundbite he’s uttered since his immortal bitter/clinger bon mot during the campaign. Which, if I’m not mistaken, also occurred at a fundraiser. Funny, the thoughts that bubble up when he’s among friends.”

CLOG: Levin went over the litany of taxes (and Medicare cuts) that are in the pipeline right now. Tax cuts, indeed. I’ve heard some whoppers before but this guy delivers them every time he opens his mouth. His smugness is sickening as well but we get to put up with it for 1007 more days. Ugh.

Todd: Regarding the Medicare cuts; that was one of the more nefarious moves made by Congress, IMO, especially the cuts to the only solvent aspect of Medicare: Medicare Advantage…

Regarding the smugness, I believe it was Harry Truman who stated that humility is one of the most important characteristics a president can exhibit. This guy is so far removed from humility that it’s disgusting, and of course the media is carrying his water for him, STILL TO THIS DAY, even though the public is fed up with the media and it’s costing them…I don’t know what will happen to this country if he’s elected again.

CLOG: The Medicare cuts might have an immediate impact on my mother since she has not used her benefits yet. As the cuts take hold within hospitals and doctor’s offices, they may stop taking new Medicare patients. So even though she is covered by Medicare, she might be shut out of the system because it will not be accepted, leaving her effectively without insurance. So let me now say the THANK YOU that DL thinks he deserves.

I think the MSM is starting to crack under the load of losing viewers and ad revenue. Ultimately, they have to make a profit. CNN was the first to be forced to tell the truth just to remain in business. Will others follow? As long as the propaganda machine is engaged, DL will continue with his almost 50% approval rate by the drones. Even the drones though may start to rethink their positions if they are elderly or have elderly parents covered by Medicare and having DRONE CENTRAL off the air will help.

Todd: Per your mom, I think that was a big part of why people were so pissed off at the various townhalls…they saw that the elderly would be affected primarily (and I think we saw that from many seniors who showed up at the townhalls)…where is the outrage there? This seems part and parcel with the whole rationing/death panel aspect that Sarah Palin was skewered for…but very much a REALITY

CLOG: The simple logic behind HC is easy to see. First, defund the existing program, Medicare, so it dies in the marketplace. Next, add into 10-15 million new people into an existing system that is already over burdened. Third, existing HC workers see this huge influx of patients and see less funding of Medicare as well as additional taxes needed for the new HC system. They instantly know that they will be working OT with little or no extra pay. DL put the knife into our entire HC system by de-motivating all of the workers. Many doctors will leave. Many nurses will leave. Those doctors/nurses that migrate in will probably be less talented and less motivated.

Death panels and rationing are a given in this situation. Palin saw this right away and realized it was the ruination of our existing system, that the new HC is simply a way to buy votes but actually destroys our current system and replaces it with a sham of a system.

Many seniors see this too and are upset because they are in the phase of their lives when they need HC the most, yet the system is deteriorating. That is not fair. Of course DL sees it as fair since any system that allows him to use taxpayer money to buy votes is OK with him.

Todd: Another interesting article…

“The percentage-based income tax has been by far the greatest accelerator of big government in the United States. This is because it guarantees government a vast steady income independent of the government’s policies or plans to spend the money. Payroll deduction, meanwhile, makes employers the tax collectors, and eliminates key elements of the natural “friction” that used to attend the collection of taxes. Your income taxes are collected from you without any exertion, decision, or conscious act of compliance on your part. You don’t even have to go buy something, as you do to pay sales tax or property tax. You just have to be doing what most people want to do anyway: working for your daily bread and the roof over your head.”

Do you buy the tenets espoused here?

CLOG: Oh, ya, this guy is right on about taxes. Here’s the key IMO:
Moreover, it becomes illegal to not report income to the government. Think about that for a minute. Why should it be? Why should government, or you or I, know what anyone’s income is – other than the incomes of government employees? What valid purpose of government is served by pursuing that information? Can you see how the destructive political purposes of agitators are served by our current system, without achieving any legitimate goal of governance? Consider that if government didn’t account for everyone’s income as if knowing it were a public entitlement, we would have a much harder time mentally classifying ourselves in the politically divisive manner we are now so accustomed to.

All money earned should be earned tax free. We should only be taxed when we use that money: sales tax, gas taxes, luxury taxes, capital gains, and so on. But before ANY taxes happen, the worker should receive EVERY penny they earned. If they want or can they can stuff that under a mattress and no one should care. The worker earned that money fair and square and should be able to keep ALL of the fruits of his/her labor. Dot gov has instead placed themselves in-line with our income generation, so they IMMEDIATELY take their cut every two weeks, just like a two-bit hood working for the Mafia taking protection money. It is legalized robbery in my opinion as it means we work for the government BEFORE we work for ourselves. That is contrary to the principle of liberty and freedom; it is true slavery, wage slavery, and our governments are our ‘Massa’s’ and long have been.

Also, should we not be able to choose how our taxes are spent? As the producers of income, should we not have a say in whether it goes to social programs, to infrastructure, or to R&D? Dot gov takes that money and it SIMPLY DISAPPEARS from my radar. In fact we are all told so often that dot gov has a right to this money (or it is our obligation to pay, with or without patriotic overtones), that we can’t conceive of a society without taxes. Really? Are we that brain dead? If we can choose how the tax money is spent, at least we have some control on our countries destiny. This way, whatever yahoo is in the WH can spend the money however he or she wishes.

As the author says it produces political division, which is the basis for the socialist classes and class struggle and hey we see the rise of liberalism partially BECAUSE OF TAX POLICY.

Dot gov is uncaringly bankrupting us:
What this [paying high taxes] did in my life, as it does for all of us, is put a lower lid on what I could afford than my income by itself would have dictated.

We accept this lower standard. Ya, we really do but should we? Why do we put up with it? Why is this acceptable? Finally:
There is a great deal wrong, however, with government claiming first dibs on the product of our labor to the extent that we end up having substantially less than we are actually working for – particularly in terms of economic and financial choice.
If the average American hadn’t had to work until 9 April to pay taxes, he could afford to buy his own health insurance much better. Indeed, if government didn’t levy various constraints on health insurance, it would cost a lot less to begin with. More people would be able to stay in the homes that are being foreclosed, if every transaction we all concluded weren’t subject to both taxes and regulation. More could have bought in the first place without being overextended. More people would still have their jobs today. Young people would have an easier time breaking into the work force. More people would save more, if they started working for themselves earlier in the year. Seriously, why should government make our labor worth less to us – arbitrarily – at the level of interference it has currently achieved? Why should it go for more?
That is the way to talk about taxes.
Amen is all I can say.

Todd: That’s the thing about the VAT…something like that works ONLY if you eliminate the other taxes, IMO.

What about property taxes? They seem as slimy as it comes…I have no evidence to back this up, but it’s just another way for .GOV to steal from us…like I said, I can’t put my finger, but it seems pretty nefarious.

What’s the way to change this culture? BO has concocted this culture of “gorging the beast,” so contrarian to what Reagan proposed. What gives .GOV the right to steal from us?

CLOG: It is always MORE taxes. We get tax cuts sometimes but they never last. Dot gov always needs more and they continually find ways to dig into our pockets. The federal income tax was only ‘temporarily’ instituted to fund WWI but it never went away. Then states got into the act with state income taxes. Then sales taxes. Then fees for licenses ad nauseum. Then taxes on energy, liquor and cigarettes. It just never ends. Now VAT is on the horizon. You can bet that VAT will be placed on top of existing taxes and not be there in place of existing taxes. An additional irony is even with record levels of taxation and revenue .gov still has to borrow even MORE and put us into debt on top of it. This is how irresponsible they have become, mortgaging our future to the hilt.

Dot gov doesn’t seem to care that by sucking all of this revenue out of the private economy, they stifle economic growth, that somehow they can continue to take this money and the economy will continue to absorb it forever. We have reached the point where the level of taxation coupled with an economic downturn is now DESTROYING our economy and even threatens our social fabric. This is absolute irresponsibility on the part of .gov but they don’t seem to care. It’s just more, more, more like a 2-year old throwing a tantrum. They are now killing the goose that lays the golden eggs and pretty soon what will be left?

Seriously, I don’t know how to stop this irresponsible behavior. Dot gov has grown into morbid obesity and is crushing and suffocating us all. Do I have to leave this land? Protests don’t work. There are too many children on our ballots and too many children voting for that matter. Maybe the fed/state feud will heat up over the 10th Amendment and some states will secede. Maybe I will get a chance to move into one of those common sense states. I don’t think MN will be one of the seceding states though.

Todd: Is secession the only recourse? Are we so far gone that this is the only option? Is it too late to find any responsible civil servants will “starve the beast,” as Reagan put it? OR, was Colin Powell, we all need government in our lives? Can we not make do without excessive government? That’s the problem: government has permeated our very fabric (as you stated below); it’s like a weed or a cockroach.

CLOG: I hope secession is not in the cards but the federal government keeps acting with absolute fiscal irresponsibility. They should be putting the brakes on spending, cutting back on .gov jobs and benefits, reducing or eliminating departments, reducing the regulatory burden and so on. Instead they GROW and put us all further into debt. This is a formula guaranteed to break our back economically. How that will express itself is anyone’s guess but it is probably now inevitable. Certainly, the early expression is increased joblessness (as an aside, I read one forum posting from TN that a $14/hr job was advertised and received 4000 resumes in response), reduced economic activity (many more small businesses can not get the loans they need), and market mal-adjustment (why is gas hovering near $3/gallon when there is a glut of crude on the world market?).

As long as the Dems are in control we cannot expect .gov to deviate from their current irresponsible behavior. It will probably get worse. We will get a little relief after the 2010 elections, maybe slow things down a bit, but it seems that .gov is driving our country toward national default. This will mean instant poverty for almost everyone and probably the start of WWIII. Maybe that is the plan, eh?

Symposium topic: Dear Leader's desired class war

2010-04-12T08:56:00.000-07:00

Todd Anthony and CodLiverOilGuy (CLOG) discuss the upcoming entitlement crisis as well as Dear Leader's desire to wage a class war between the "have's" and the "have nots."

Todd: http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/09/representation-without-taxation/

Doc Zero nails it again…

“Let’s explore the idea as a thought experiment. If taxation without representation was an outrage that sparked the Revolution, why is representation without taxation acceptable? It’s logical to suggest that only those who pay for government benefits should have a vote in selecting our representatives. Allowing net tax consumers to vote seems like an inherently dangerous practice, given their numbers – we’ve reached the point where 47% of American households pay no income tax – and their strong motivation to support politicians who promise endlessly increasing benefits. When politicians loaded with vast public funds to purchase votes meet up with a population eager to sell its votes for benefits, a grim marketplace will inevitably develop.

This is a formula not only guaranteed, but designed, to produce an unsustainable entitlement state. The high-rolling politician secures victory by defeating the productive, and creating a dependency class large enough to smother taxpayer revolts at the ballot box. Restricting the vote to those who pay into the system would break this fiscal short circuit. It would also tend to cut down on voter fraud, since the IRS puts a great deal of effort into tracking people who owe taxes.”

The liberals know what they’re doing…they’re creating an army of welfare zombies that will fight tooth and nail to ensure they get that government check and satellite TV.

CLOG: Wow. He did nail it. So does this mean that DL and the libs have bought enough votes now to stay permanently in office and our only recourse as productive citizens is to leave the country? I was reading a story this morning about South Africa, how all of the young people, especially the whites, are leaving the country due to the high level of crime. Is this what we have to look forward to for our future? SA will, of course, follow the path of Zimbabwe (formerly the productive Rhodesia) and fall to pieces because the whites are the only ones that know how to farm or manage.

Doling out votes based on incomes is dangerous too since you have to draw a line somewhere as to vote eligibility and whoever draws that line has a lot of power. The survival of our country is based on the idea of individual citizen responsibility and clearly a large part is acting irresponsibly. That irresponsibility has been encouraged by equally irresponsible politicians for decades now. So what do we do at this point? How do we encourage the return of individual responsibility? Is it even possible.

It is very sad to watch our country fall apart but so many citizens have drunk the O’lade and do not seem interested in building up our country, only in taking. Also, by destroying the foundation of this country, they lay a new foundation, most likely for fascism.

Todd: “It is very sad to watch our country fall apart but so many citizens have drunk the O’lade and do not seem interested in building up our country, only in taking. Also, by destroying the foundation of this country, they lay a new foundation, most likely for fascism.”

Exactly; this is the change to which our Dear Leader was referring. All of the O-zombies mistakenly believed the hopeychange he referenced was “cute” and “catchy…” no no no…he wanted to change America, from a capitalistic society to that of a welfare state. There’s no doubt in my mind that this was a concerted effort as well…we drank the O-ADE/O’lade. Many people have realized the error of her ways; many have not and still stubbornly cling to the notion that this “man” can “fix” things.

CLOG: < many have not and still stubbornly cling to the notion that this “man” can “fix” things > In reading comments to various articles, I see this attitude expressed a lot: give him a chance, he’s better than Bush, HC is progress, the nuclear treaty is a step toward peace, and so on. They see this way forward as a good thing, ignoring history and certainly ignoring the conservatives who are shouting about the dangers. They are locked inside their faith and I do not believe many will give that faith up even if it costs them their lives, so great is their faith in DL. Others who lack faith are just along for the ride, acting like parasites. This group doesn’t care whether we’re capitalist or Communist as long as they have gas in their tank and a burger stuffed in their mouth.

< I don’t know about you, but I ain’t leavin’> I don’t want to leave either but I have seriously considered it. GD1 was bad but we had a working society. GD2 promises to be worse but then in the midst of a dysfunctional society with an incompetent, even dangerous leader. When I think about the times we live in, I wonder if anywhere on the globe is truly safe. It may look better now (Canada comes to mind) but will it always be so? If I felt there was a ‘new’ part to the world where a man could get a fresh start, I might seriously consider it, not only for myself, but as an anchor in case my family wanted to leave later. Those new lands no longer exist so I am staying for now and I will try to do as much to fix these problems as I can.

More environmental nonsense

2010-04-08T10:57:00.001-07:00

I came across the video below, and thought, considering the ultimate liberal prize is complete and utter control over its denizons, this just makes perfect sense!

Hey 52%, thanks a lot! You know who you are!

You bought into this nonsense, hook, line, and sinker. Personally, I have no desire to revert our country back to pre-Industrial Revolution levels. I like modern conveniences, electricity, I like a warm house.

I have a feeling you do too; so you know what will happen if/when Congress passes a Cap and Trade bill? Higher utility rates, higher unemployment, more expensive THINGS (it takes energy to create ANYTHING; those costs are passed onto the customer).

Way to go, Einsteins...now, it's our turn to clean up your mess.

Symposium: more foreign policy gaffes and political correctness gone wild

2010-04-07T07:36:00.002-07:00

Todd Anthony and CodLiverOilGuy (CLOG) discuss yet another foreign policy gaffe from our Dear Leader; or is this yet another calculated scheme to neuter us? We also discuss America's role in the End Times.

Todd: http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/07/ap-obama-to-delete-references-to-islamic-extremism-from-national-security-policy/

More foreign policy goodness from our Dear Leader…this is yet another example of DL’s 1.) incompetence; 2.) calculated, shrewd maneuvering to either neuter us or make us vulnerable, thus precipitating what I believe to be a move towards martial law.

CLOG: This is going to cost American lives, no doubt whatsoever. Our enemies are not PC and are spitting and laughing at our stupidity even now. We are helping their war effort and making it easier for them to kill us. By blurring the definition of our enemy, we build in automatic military hesitation. Their mission becomes fuzzier and it is harder for them to plan and execute effectively. By adding so much gray, they have to add extra contingencies, also diluting their effectiveness. Why have the best military in the world and then hobble it with PC stupidity?

Is it not amazing how much damage this one man can do? Yesterday he neutered our long standing and effective nuclear policy. Today he puts a hand of friendship out to people who have openly vowed to wipe us from the face of the earth, weakening the cause of liberty and justice in the world. Tomorrow what new havoc will be visited upon us by DL?

It is even more amazing that the electorate put him into power without considering the havoc his ideology can cause. As a nation we really have lost our mojo and our wisdom. We really all need to go back to the rural life where the consequences of each decision are carefully weighed since a wrong decision can cause great misery or even death for you or your family. By being so careless and so shallow (Keeping our gas tank full and our mortgage paid is really the end-goal of all of our lives? Really?) we have voted our doom into office and his name is Barack Obama. At this rate America will be a shell of its former self in only 1019 days. In a best case scenario we will have gas and a roof, but we will be enslaved by an all-consuming, intrusive government. In the worst case scenario there will be no gas and we will be starving in the cold. We made a bad decision and we will pay dearly for it.

Todd: And that question I have is: when will we (“we” being Americans, liberals, independents, etc.) STOP 1.) putting faith in humankind, as we did with THIS GUY; STOP 2.) believing that soothing words will assuage tyrants, madmen, and murderers.

I seethe at the hubris of this man…who does he think he has that he can play LITERALLY with the safety and welfare of the American populace.

CLOG: Ever since the Fall, humanity has been self-centered. We want to determine our own destiny and be our own god. Every person is born this way. In order to be a god, you have to believe in your own innate goodness (or rightness) and have to believe that others are basically good too. The self-centeredness is a fatal flaw in that you are not looking at yourself or others realistically; your self-centeredness demands you ignore your self-centeredness since it is a flaw and gods do not have flaws. So almost everyone works under some form of this delusion. Marxism takes the delusion and applies it to government, that .gov will make everything OK; we just have to follow obediently. Humans always have to believe in a leader. Realistic humans (Christians) realize that our ultimate leader is GOD. Everyone gets stuck at the leader and so have no choice but to believe in them and hope everything will turn out OK in their lifetime. My mother is completely stuck in this rut and no amount of facts will dislodge her because she has no other place to go to place her belief.

Tyrants are very aware of the human need for a leader and that most of the population wants desperately to believe in them. So they clean up their act and appear to be benevolent to stoke everyone’s belief. Once in power, the picture changes dramatically, but then people are stuck and will remain believing even in the face of great suffering or evidence of heinous crimes. Nazi Germany is a prime example.

Most people do not want to admit their faults and even fewer their sins and fewer still become humble before God and serve Him. Jesus taught the latter path and it is the very hardest for humans to follow, hence the narrow gate analogy He used. It is only as each INDIVIDUAL is transformed, that any society has any chance. Socializing transformation corrupts those doing the socialization and impoverishes or even destroys the general population since there is no way to attain ‘equality’ or ‘social justice’ for everyone using this path.

Until the population is 100% Christian (another 1000 plus years at least), people will continue to try to rule using human nature and cause continued grief and destruction. In the meantime, after every destruction and desolation caused by tyranny, we have to institute education to make the young aware of the failed paths from history and more importantly why they failed so they do not make the same mistake. As a society, around the globe, we mostly fail at this task and continue to make the same mistakes over and over and over.

Liberals will never stop trying to transform society via socialization because they believe they have the answer and they will not deviate from their faith. Humanism is a religion that denies being a religion. After the coming great destruction of our society and way of life, I hope we can teach our young the dangers of this thought pattern. So far we have been doing the opposite and our society is crumbling but those doing the crumbling ignore the havoc they wreak and live in their ideological towers, towers that cannot be touched by misery, the wailing of children, or even death itself.

As to your later email comment about how Christians can also be liberals (in fact they are the majority of the Christian community IMO), I think they confuse faith in socialism with faith in God. Much of the socialistic message is about justice for the down-trodden and certainly Jesus was an advocate for the poor and dispossessed. I think they get caught up in the programs to help the poor and doing good works, thinking they are working toward the same ends as Jesus, and do not study the heart of the Gospel or Jesus message that repentance is key and all else is secondary or even meaningless. Without forswearing self-centeredness, nothing real can be achieved. As liberalism has grown in our society, the social message has become prime, burying the gospel message, and people lap it up because it is an easy path to follow and doesn’t require you to give up your self-centeredness. I think the narrow gate is mostly ignored by liberal Christians.

Todd: But how long will we continue to fall for this idiotic, liberal way of reacting to tyrants; when we will ever learn? How many Neville Chamberlain moments does this world require before we finally realize that EVIL PEOPLE exist, and that by pandering to said evil people, they only take advantage of us (at best)?

CLOG: We will always fall into the same trap. Though we record and even study history, we NEVER (maybe I’ll grant a seldom here since there may have been one society that learned somewhere in time) learn from it. History is dully repetitive on this point. Humans are incredibly stubborn in wanting to cling to their self-centeredness and the sin and evil overcome the societies – always. It is an eternal cycle and demonstrates conclusively the brokenness of our nature. Of course, most won’t admit that and so the cycle repeats.

This is why Jesus has to return. At one coming point in history (soon, I hope), this behavior will lead to the complete destruction of the planet and our extinction if He does not step in. We will cling to our selfishness even at the cost of our entire species.

We are a stupid, stupid people.

Todd: “This is why Jesus has to return. At one coming point in history (soon, I hope), this behavior will lead to the complete destruction of the planet and our extinction if He does not step in. We will cling to our selfishness even at the cost of our entire species. ”

After reading an article where BO is basically telling Israel the terms of a peace plan (what they CAN and CANNOT accept), I wonder if the above scenario could be hastened by something our DL would precipitate (oh I don’t know…invasion perhaps?)…

CLOG: Oh, DL is playing his role, all right. One glaring omission from Bible prophecy is any mention of the USA. We do not play a significant role in the End Times. Many authors say this can’t be so and contort the Bible to fit us in but I don’t buy it. We aren’t there more than likely because we have declined from superpower status and are no longer a major player on the world stage. DL’s actions are hastening our demise and when our stabilizing influence is lost on the world as we collapse, that is when (IMO) major wars and destabilizations break out. As you suggest, this will probably begin with Israel and Iran and DL’s pressures will insure that Israel will probably have to go it alone, may botch the attack, and then all of her Muslim neighbors will have the perfect excuse to attack her. They certainly have nothing to fear from Obama who has hinted his support of Muslim aims and no love lost with Israel.

As far as history rewriting, the victor always rewrites history to make themselves look good. Much of history is completely lost too due to book burnings and looting and such.

Symposium topic: Obama's neutering of America

2010-04-06T13:57:00.001-07:00

Todd and CodLiverOilGuy (CLOG) discuss the Obama's latest foreign policy maneuvers: declaring that the United States would not retaliate against a nation from where a chemical or biological was initiated, as well as Obama's decision to reduce our missile stockpile.

Todd: http://hotair.com/archives/2010/04/06/wh-tacitly-accepts-missile-defense-limits-of-russians-on-start/

I wonder; can this guy do ANYTHING right on foreign policy? It’s one concession after another; yet another emasculation…

This HAS to be a concerted effort to neuter us, don’t you think?

Furthermore, this is par for the course with this guy…just yesterday, the White House basically states that we won’t retaliate in the event of a chemical or biological attack. Why don’t we just 1.) tell the terrorists that we give up; 2.) hand our b*lls to them right now?

CLOG:

The redefining of our nuclear policy has me furious. You said it 100% about handing our sack over to our enemies and surrendering. Much of the deterrent power of nuclear weapons is never knowing what it will take to have one launched against you so you do little or nothing to risk it. The system is proven and works fantastically. Now DL wants to scrap that and DEFINE when we will use them and that in some situations we probably will NOT use them. Talk about setting us up for a terrorist attack.

This has to be a well-thought out move on DL’s part. I cannot see anyone being this stupid. Our military must have gone apoplectic upon hearing this. Does this border on treason? It’s one thing to leave our southern border unguarded and letting illegals flow back and forth. It is quite another to let our guard down and open us up to a chem or bio attack. This is absolutely irresponsible.

As to START, it’s more of the same. Why are we giving the Ruskies an advantage after decades of research and billions invested in our nuclear arsenal? We cannot change the FACT that we live in a nuclear armed world and we must do EVERYTHING we can to make sure these weapons are never used in anger. By backing down, DL is INCREASING the chances of their use. It is 1020 days until this clown is gone. By his irresponsible actions, we might see one or more major terror events on our soil before then and we can place the blame squarely on his shoulders as the result of these poor decisions.

Todd: Exactly; you said it…here’s what we can glean from this man’s actions:

He thinks that because, in his mind, he’s smarter than George Bush, he’s going to be able to assuage our enemies with soothing words.
He thinks that, because he is now president, our enemies no longer hate us.

THUS, he’s essentially left us open to an emboldened jihadist, as well as a more brazen Russia and China. MOREVER, our allies presumably doubt whether they can count on us. I absolutely believe this is a calculated maneuver on Dear Leader’s part. He’s doing this intentionally, in a long series of moves to strip us of our superpower status.

And this is just on the foreign policy front; he’s neutering, or at best, making us irrelevant, right before our very eyes. His goal is to make us ordinary, on the world stage. While many people are having eye-opening experiences because of this man’s plots, many more still drink the O-ADE and cling to the “HopenChange” bullshit.

I’ve said this several times, but if we’re attacked, I absolutely think DL and the Acolytes need to be held legally accountable (as you mentioned: TREASON).

From Hot Air:

“Put simply, this is a big non-sequitur, a fixing of what wasn’t broken in the first place, much like the Obama focus on the START treaty over real threats like Iran and North Korea. It’s almost literally a move from left field, playing on the progressive turf in a game that no one else bothered to play. Only a Leftist would do this thinking it was a move to the middle, and it shows just how out of touch this administration is with the mainstream of American thought.”

It’s not just being “out-of-touch,” it’s being intentionally negligent when it comes to our national defense.

CLOG: < the O-ADE > I like this phrase. I might be borrowing it in the future.

I agree with you, the HA author is being too nice. These are calculated political moves to weaken our country and somehow by becoming weaker we are now more ‘equal’ and the world will love us. That is just royal BS and no such thing will happen. As soon as we show weakness, we will be stomped on. The world is jealous of our EARNED superpower status (again, DL thinks that status was not obtained legitimately but on the backs of the poor) and they will use any opportunity to bring us down. Neville Chamberlain is currently remembered as the biggest appeaser in history. I wonder if he will be replaced by DL because of his actions.

Also note that in addition to crippling us on the foreign affairs stage, he will next be crippling us with crap and poop. If he cannot get the bill through Congress, he may bypass them, and use the EPA’s regulatory powers to begin imposing CO2 controls on our energy providers, driving prices through the roof. Again, the exact wrong thing to do in the early days of GD2. I swear he is trying to institute the feudal system in America. We threw one royal off our shores that tried this in the Revolutionary War? Has another crept into the WH and we have to do it once more?

Todd: Guy, that’s exactly point…we’ve been there, done that (see: Revolutionary War), not we’re anxious to re-institute another tyranny? What the hell has happened to this country? I can tell you actually: 50% of its citizens are fat and jiggly and are content with the rest of us footing THEIR bill, so they can collect welfare and watch satellite TV.

As for “crap and poop,” while that would be another completely depressing piece of legislation, I would think that would be easier to repeal than Health Care, especially if the EPA circumvents Congress and merely enacts by FIAT.

“Has another crept into the WH and we have to do it once more?”

I’m absolutely convinced this is the case…this is all intentional, criminal neglect on his part; he’s setting us up for an attack, economic crisis, etc, so he can declare martial law.

Todd: <50% of its citizens are fat and jiggly and are content with the rest of us footing THEIR bill, so they can collect welfare and watch satellite TV.> LOL. You paint a GREAT picture here but one that is unfortunately very true. It is also interesting that the most obesity in this country can be found in its poorest states. In the past this would have been a source of great shame but no longer. America has lowered the bar and no longer asks her citizens to be responsible or bear their fair share. Uncle Sugar indeed has corrupted all too many with easy money and soothing words…and, of course, 200 channels of hi-def TV!

I agree that regulations can be repealed easier than HC but they can still do an immense amount of damage over the next 3 years. Way too many segments of our economy are not healthy and cannot afford these higher costs. It is all the more a bitter brew to drink because GW is a complete sham.

I agree that DL may be angling for martial law, provoking the citizenry to extremes so he can shut down what is left of our democratic process. He is playing with fire though. There are too many Americans that will not roll over and once he has made his move, they will make theirs. I do not believe DL has LEO or military support (at least long term), though I wonder if he will try to work around this by asking for UN troops. I hope and pray those desperate times and measures ever occur.

Symposium topic: liberalism, ObamaCare, Repeal, Entitlements

2010-04-06T07:31:00.000-07:00

Todd Anthony and CodLiverOilGuy (CLOG) discuss repealing ObamaCare in a conversation that touches Obama's secret desire to become "Dear Leader" and impose martial law, entitlements, and the nature of liberalism.

Todd: I came across this article from the National Review Online that discusses Kentucky's successful effort to repeal Kentucky Kare.

CLOG: Can I ask a dumb question here:

Where was this story during the healthcare debate? This is ACTUAL EVIDENCE that Obamacare will not work. Real-world evidence of a state that tried and watched it fail miserably. Why didn’t we see this brought out by conservatives during the debate? Is everyone asleep at the switch? This would have been proof that it wouldn’t work and should have been trumpeted from the house tops.

It took over 10 years to repeal the KY monstrosity so it will probably take over 20 on the national level, all the while watching the system fail with rising costs, poorer service, and fewer covered. This needed to be stopped before it got started and this story might have made a difference.

Hope for a future generation? Yes. Hope for me? No. I get to grow old and just when I need the system it will not be there for me. Dot gov cheats me once more. Do they know how to do anything else anymore in DC?

Todd: Nope, it’s pretty awful…I think a French Revolution could be in store for us down the road.

And that’s a good point…where was this store PRE-health care “BFD” passage? I didn’t see this on ANY of the right-wing blogs at all. Where was Michelle Malkin? Where was Hot Air? Where was Drudge? Where was Pajamas Media?

CLOG: Where were the KY Republicans? They should have been yelling like their house was on fire – This will not work. We tried and it failed. Why weren’t they on TV or sending missives to all of the conservative bloggers or talking to Sarah Palin about this? Man this story could have gotten some traction. Anyway, spilt milk, I guess.

It could be getting ugly all right. Denninger wrote a missive that because .gov has been replacing consumer spending with gvmnt borrowing, when the inevitable fall comes, it will be a mighty fall indeed, much worse than if they had not propped things up with massive public debt. You think the .gov popularity figures are low now, they will hit all time lows, followed perhaps by the people taking to the streets.

Todd: Don’t you think this is playing right into DL’s hands? He’s GOT to be hoping for a bit of an insurrection; THUS, he can then declare martial law, suspend elections, rule by fiat, etc. Don’t you think? Of course, the ramifications of this could be serious bloodshed as well.

I suppose he could care less if, in the annals of history, he’s known as the Ivan the Terrible of the United States.

CLOG: I am sure DL would love an excuse to impose martial law. He can then take over or at least thinks he can. The problem win insurrections is that LEO’s and military are very reluctant to fire on their own people. It’s one thing to take care of hooligans and terrorists and quite another when everyday housewives and business people are rushing the barricades. Pulling that trigger becomes a lot tougher. Also, the populace of the US is fairly well armed and formidable, especially if desperate. Ya, maybe DL could get away with martial law for a while but could he make it stick? I doubt it because he does not understand the people of this country and cannot rule except according to his ideology. His ideology will probably fail him miserably in the face of desperate, independence minded masses of people who will feel betrayed by said ideology, will have lost everything in the second leg down, and are hungry, miserable and cold.

During the opening days of GD1, some WWI veterans stormed DC and were killed. That put an end to the passions and the country sat and waited the Depression out. Do you think that will be the case this time around? I am wondering if the desperation will be that much greater and that reason and sacrifice will prevail this time.

Todd: “During the opening days of GD1, some WWI veterans stormed DC and were killed. That put an end to the passions and the country sat and waited the Depression out. Do you think that will be the case this time around? I am wondering if the desperation will be that much greater and that reason and sacrifice will prevail this time.”

I honestly don’t know, friend, what to expect from the American citizenry…while we know there’s a significant tract of people genuinely PO’ed, we also have approximately half the country that’s fat and jiggly, nursing at the government teat. How will they react when someone proposes to abolish their “milk cow?”

CLOG: I am assuming that the second leg down will include either the end of ALL entitlements or a significant scale back. The second leg down will come when .gov can no longer prop which means she cannot sell any more bonds and tax revenues continue to decline, leading either to default or hyperinflation.

People will be loyal only as long as their belly is full. When ‘what’s theirs’ gets cut off, well…

Todd: This is the basis of DL’s “class warfare” rhetoric. The liberals misguidedly believe they’re defending the rights of “those less fortunate” than us.

CLOG: There are actually 2 classes of liberals: true idealists/ideologues and sociopaths. The first class was characterized by Lenin as the ‘useful idiots’ and are generally the young and the ‘intellectuals’ though I use that term loosely. Lenin, Stalin, and Mao (among a host of others) belong to the second class. This class realizes that socialism/Marxism is a complete scam and unworkable. However, it is a useful doctrine for bamboozling those in the first class and thereby parting them from their money as well gaining their support for political office. I believe DL is in this second class. He uses Marxism purely for political gain. Castro and Chavez are also in this category. They mouth the Marxist words but are only interested in money and power and use this ideology toward those ends. They are of course very careful to never spill the beans that they are no longer ‘true believers’ lest the con be spoiled.

I believe that DL no longer believes in his heart he is doing anything for the poor or unfortunate or even cares to do so. He knows he is gaming the system for himself alone. This is why socialism/Marxism is so dangerous: it opens the door to sociopaths to gain entry to the seats of power. Once there, they are almost impossible to unseat because of the useless idiots keeping them in power. Once these monsters gain power, well, you know the history.

Do you think Pelosi, Reid, and many other Dems truly care about the poor? Maybe once they did but now it is about money and power – at any cost. Any underpriveledged class is now only a pawn used to gain power or money. So there are two levels of pawns here: any victim class and the useful idiot pawns. The sociopaths sit on the top pulling the strings and reaping all of the benefits, throwing just enough morsels to the other pawns to keep the game going.

Friday pontification

2010-04-02T14:37:00.000-07:00

Anyone else find it interesting that a week after "health care reform" passed, we witnessed a Fed raid on a "right-wing/Christian" militia plus a four high-profile editorials (Rich, Krugman, et al) denouncing Tea Partiers as a group of neanderthal, racist, homophobes?

Doesn't this just reek of a well-orchestrated hit job by Dear Leader and (H)is Acolytes in the Legacy Media? It doesn't really pass the smell taste...instead it seems to be an effort to turn the criticism from that of the aforementioned Liberal Intellectuals to that of the "messenger (the messenger being Dear Leader's critics)."

It seems too well-timed to me: a raid on a right-wing militia coupled with liberal editorials.

The twisted world liberals have forced us to live...April 1st edition

2010-04-01T13:18:00.000-07:00

More twisted thoughts from liberals…

I’m reading the following article, http://www.freedomworks.org/publications/the-war-on-poverty-turns-40, and when I came to this section, I had a bit of an epiphany:

“An America based on limited government and unlimited opportunity—an America that rewards the hard work and initiative of its citizens—will not suffer from widespread poverty.”

Only in a liberals’ world are we rewarding laziness, entitlement, and lack of initative. In the “real world,” their opposites are what really propel people to success. IN A LIBERALS’ world, we are punishing success and rewarding the opposite.

WHY IS THIS? Is this because liberals perceive the fruits of our labor as undeserved? Ill-gotten? “Unfair?”

It's as if liberals, in so many facets but in particular economic ones, refuse to face the facts: hard-work, lower taxes, a vibrant PRIVATE sector, and MORE freedom, results in a healthy economy.

Instead, we're bombarded with increased government and higher taxes as well more intrusion from the feds. .GOV chooses to create and enforce more regulations, mandates, and laws in order to social engineer the country THEY want; one that defies common sense and good judgment.

All because an America of hard work is one they dislike.

Liberals see ALL wealth as evil and only obtained through illegal or immoral means. To them there are no such things as ‘fruits of labor.’ The concept simply doesn’t make sense in their world. Since wealth is all ill-gotten, it is ‘moral’ to tax it for the public good, to compensate for the ‘evil’ aspect of how the wealth was obtained. Wealth is never attained by hard, honest work; that is impossible in Marxist theory.

This is bogus of course. Our country was built by letting people keep as much of the fruits of their labor as possible and letting THEM determine what to do with said fruits. This has led to a strong work ethic (.gov doesn’t steal your fruits) and a sense of pride and honor. It also led to many people starting small businesses or innovative businesses and building our country into an economic powerhouse IN SPITE of FDR and the Dems.

The work ethic is disappearing now because .gov is taxing everything and giving it to the poor (minus their cut, of course), so why labor? In fact, it is better to be poor and live off .gov largesse. Again, the power of propaganda at work, destroying our society. Also, taxation takes away the capital that individuals need to start small or innovative businesses, hence our economic decline.

Unless we begin to shrink government all all levels right now, we are doomed. It may already be too late though. Also, the propaganda poisoning so many people has made them dependent and they do not know how to work or gain the fruits of hard labor. We’ve really messed things up…bigtime. Even if .gov shrinks, many in the population would not know what to do. Dot gov has not given her citizens the tools they need for self-sufficiency or prosperity. Instead they’ve stuck a needle in our veins and pumped in the addictive drug called welfare…all for our own good, of course. Watch out when that needle comes up empty.

Written by Todd Anthony and CodLiverOilGuy

Is there another Reagan out there?

2010-03-31T11:09:00.002-07:00

James Pethokoukis penned this article, opining that the slumping economy could remain sluggish for 20 years. For those of us old enough to remember, we experienced a similar period of economic stagnation during the 1970's, propagated by notions of price controls (a Nixonian brainfart), higher taxes, regulations, increased government meddling, etc; only to see Ronald Reagan literally ride to the rescue by lowering taxes and encouraging the private sector.

Well guess what? We're witnessing the same tired liberal dogma in practice again, this time by one Barack Obama. My question is: does America have another Ronald Reagan it can offer us?

We obviously need someone who can inspire the country, reinvigorate our economy, start exercising some financial restrain (and thus, force Congress to do so). The entitlement nonsense must end, as must this reluctance to cultivate our natural resources.

Unfortunately, when I look at potential "next Reagans," I see few noteworthy candidates; Sarah Palin (too polarizing); Tim Pawlenty (maybe); Bobby Jindal (choked on the national stage in his last big spot); Paul Ryan (perhaps); Jim Demint (perhaps).

Who else is there?

How about we prosecute Leftist politicians for failing to protect American lives?

2009-04-11T15:36:00.001-07:00

Only in the current political climate could jackass liberal Congressman, see Pat Leahy, Dennis Kucinich, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, etc., ponder bringing criminal charges against former Bush administration officials on trumped torture charges.

Only now, with a near unsurmountable liberal majority in Congress, enabled by the most liberal President in the history of the United States, could we actually return to a pre-9/11, Clinton-like mindset.

According to Mackubin Owens of the National Review:

What makes the Leahy-Whitehouse show trials most appalling -- and hypocritical -- is that Congress was briefed on the enhanced interrogation methods in September 2002. At the time, according to the Washington Post, members of Congress from both parties -- including current Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi -- wanted to ensure that the interrogations were tough enough to get the necessary intelligence from the captured terrorists. As the Post reported, "there was no objecting, no hand-wringing," and according to a U.S. official present during the briefings, "the attitude was, 'We don't care what you do to those guys as long as you get the information you need to protect the American people.'" But of course, according to a source looking back on that period, "the environment was different then because we were closer to Sept. 11 and people were still in a panic."

What's further disgusting is that so many of these jackass Congressman, as Owens states in the article, KNEW AND APPROVED of these tactics, as long as it prevented further American deaths. Now, as the specter of 9/11 slowly fades away, we've come full-circle; we're returned to a pre-9/11 mentality.

In this writer's opinion, with the aforementioned return, and nauseating naivety our president and the Left has displayed, it's not a question of IF, but WHEN we'll be attacked by terrorists, er, "man-made disaster" causers, as another Leftist Obama-appointed flunkie, in this case Homeland Security chief Janet Napolitano, is wont to refer.

I propose that instead of prosecuting the Bush administration for war-crimes (how is that possible when an enemy 1.) doesn't fight for a country that signed the Geneva Convention, 2.) attacks civilians.?), when we're attacked by Al Qaeda again, we prosecute these jackass Congressman for not doing all they could to protect American citizens, but instead, were more willing to pander to jackass far-Left anti-war groups?

Nauseating Naivity

2009-04-10T09:14:00.000-07:00

Is anyone else not just disturbed but physically sickened by the latest "apologies" from Barry Obama?

Mere hours after North Korea once again violates UN sanctions by launching a missile, our president states that he wants to not only reduce nuclear arms around the world, but that he wants to cut missile defense, the very defense that would protect us from a North Korean, or Iranian missile, for that matter.

What sort of message does this sound to those who wish to do Americans harm? It hearkens back to the Bill Clinton administration, where our country, people, and interests were assault constantly by those who knew that we lacked the stones to mount a formidable response.

It's in Obama's mind that our best response to rogue regimes and terrorism is dialogue, conciliation, and compromise. Unbelievable naivety.

One thing that always makes me chuckle about liberals is their collective lack of long-term memory. In their minds, George W. Bush CAUSED terrorism, but yet they fail to remember that his predecessor, the aforementioned Clinton, left a national security disaster at the feet of W., including, but not limited to, 1998 U.S. Embassy bombings, first World Trade Center bombing, feeble attempts to apprehend Osama bin Laden, Khober Towers attack, the U.S. Cole, etc.

And to add insult to injury, Obama has the unmitigated gall to state that not only does he want to return to the golden age of American-Muslim relations (of a time, 20-30 years ago) but that under Bush, our nation has been at war with Islam.

My god, the naivety of this man.

Does Barry Obama forget that we liberated two Islamic nations from two repressive regimes that did not allow basic human rights? Has he forgotten the billions in AIDS relief to African nations, many of which are predominantly Muslim? Has he forgotten the billions that went to Indonesia (a Muslim country) after the 2004 tsunami?

Yet in this man's mind, we should apologize for defending ourselves against militant Islam.

Unbelievable.

Andrew McCarthy of the National Review sums this naive thinking best:

"There is nothing less civilized than rewarding evil and thus guaranteeing more of it. High-minded as it is commonly made to sound, it is not civilized to appease evil, to treat it with “dignity and respect,” to rationalize its root causes, to equivocate about whether evil really is evil, and, when all else fails, to ignore it — to purge the very mention of its name — in the vain hope that it will just go away. Evil doesn’t do nuance. It finds you, it tests you, and you either fight it or you’re part of the problem."

If this man continues this dangerous course, we'll be back to square one, then ultimately looking again for a "unilateralist cowboy."

The rebuttal against Global Warming Alarmists

2008-11-25T12:36:00.000-08:00

Besides the one that comes immediately to mind, "Eat shit and die assholes..."

The National Review Online's Planet Gore section highlights laughable statements from Google, who urge the government, led by President-elect Barry Obama and a near-filibuster-proof Congress to combat "Global Warming:"

Rather than more government, how about this?

The private marketplace is better suited than the government to pick energy winners and losers, so government should step back and let the market find the answers to meeting our energy needs in a reliable and affordable manner. Let the market bring technologies online when the economics of the technologies work without handouts and when the technology is truly (and commercially) viable. Repeal subsidies. Avoid mandates. Don’t put a price on a gas that we exhale and that must exist for human, animal, and plant life to continue. Don’t sign on to emission-reduction schemes that will handicap our economy, while doing little, if anything, to control emissions. Tap our nation’s abundant natural resources, and quit letting exploration and recovery efforts get stalled for years in the courts and in the agencies. Build the baseload units, including nuclear-energy plants, that have always met, can still meet — and must exist if we want to meet the bulk of our energy and electricity demand. Be realistic about the current state of, and future prospects for, renewable energies. Recognize that vibrant free markets and a protected environment are not mutually exclusive goals.

Sound like a winner to anyone else?

Has anyone else noticed that it's virtually impossible to reason with a liberal?

A Panacea for Economic Growth

2008-11-25T10:19:00.001-08:00

The Democrats just don't get it, do they? According to this article, "Governments across the world are now diving into deficit spending, chosen as a means with which to "stimulate" their national economies. The

is leading the global parade. Only two weeks ago, the deficit estimates for next year were between $US 1.5 TRILLION to an average of $US 2.1 TRILLION. But in an interview last weekend, President-elect Obama said that the government should not worry about deficits over the next two years while spending money to jumpstart the ailing economy."

Yet didn't Barry Obama and his Democratic counterpoints argue that it was Bush's "Tax Cuts for the Rich" and his deficit spending that put us in our current economic predicament?

Most of you probably realize that it's okay for forked-tongued Liberals to speak out of both sides of their mouths, especially when it comes to fighting global warming, giving handouts to poor people, and paying for universal health care.

We've heard from President-Elect, Barry Obama that he's planning on raising taxes on the rich, raising the capital gains tax, lowering carbon emissions, etc. Ultimately, it will be the middle class that suffers, in lost jobs, higher energies, and less wealth, overall.

Why, so we can line the pockets of people like T. Boone Pickens and Al Gore in their trumped up battle against Global Warming, Big Oil, and Big Business.

According to Scott Bensing of Townhall.com, "The reality is simple, lower taxes attract businesses, which generate jobs and money for the local economy. That is how to improve the current economic environment, not back-breaking tax hikes and the anti-business environment promised by Democrats."

Yet, Democrats across the nation are looking to raise taxes in the time of economic downturn.

Haven't we been through this before with Jimmy Carter?

The solution is to cut taxes as well as spending but to cut spending faster than taxes to leave more real economic and financial resources in private and individual hands so that they can repair their balance sheets. On top of that, interest rates must be raised - not lowered - to reward savers for producing more than they now consume.

Democrats just don't get it; that's the gesalt for spurring economic growth. After all, you can't tax your way out of a recession.

Michigan: A Case Study on Disastrous Democratic Policies

2008-11-24T13:34:00.000-08:00

I came across this article, courtesy of the National Review's Planet Gore section. Now, if you haven't checked it out, it's a must read regarding the global warming joke, the carbon credit sham, and all things anti-radical environmentalism. Furthermore, it dispels and refutes so much of what is forced down our collective throats by the Left and their environmental benefactors and is almost accepted as the naked truth by a majority of the American populace (see: those who voted for Barack Obama).

This article in particular discusses the disastrous economic policies pushed onto the good citizens of Michigan by their governor, Jennifer Granholm, a Democrat, and new member of Obama's economic team.

Need we remind how bad of shape, economically, Michigan is...why? Because the home of the once-proud Big 3 Automakers has now forced "alternative energy" onto its population, all in the name of "global warming." See, it all starts with "reducing carbon emissions," even though a rise in C02 has NEVER been linked to raising temperatures, and despite the fact that even though C02 levels have risen over the past decade, the Earth is actually cooling.

The result has been a Michigan economy that has drowned under Granholm’s watch, with unemployment tripling to a nation-leading 9.3 percent at the same time that Michigan’s debilitating economic fundamentals — high taxes and overgenerous concessions to organized labor — have gone unaddressed. Granholm, however, has missed few opportunities for photo ops touting the companies that have benefiited from her tax handouts or her road-construction spending.

GO figure.

You see, sorry to disappoint you, but global warming is a fucking joke. It's a spurious imitation, a fraud, a feign, a sham, just so Al "An Inconvenient Truth" Gore can make a few bucks on his carbon credit contrivance.

The complete article:

Obama Channels Granholm on Green Stimulus [Henry Payne]
Detroit, Mich. — Now we know why Michigan Gov. Jennifer Granholm is on President-elect Barack Obama’s economic policy team. Judging by Obama’s Saturday economic address, he plans to address the nation’s ills with the same inept policies Granholm has championed for the last six years here in Michigan.

Granholm and Obama have much in common: They are both young Democratic party protégés, both are charismatic personalities, and both are left-wing, Harvard-educated lawyers with little experience running anything prior to assuming office. Like Granholm, Obama appears to have little grasp of market economics, but prefers showy public-works programs and utopian visions of bridging a carbon-addicted America to a new green economy that will employ millions.

The similarities between Obamanomics (as outlined in Saturday’s radio address) and Granholmnomics (as outlined in her January State of the State address) are striking.

Obama:

“(My stimulus plan) will be a two-year, nationwide effort to jumpstart job creation in America and lay the foundation for a strong and growing economy. We’ll put people back to work rebuilding our crumbling roads and bridges, modernizing schools that are failing our children, and building wind farms and solar panels, fuel-efficient cars and the alternative energy technologies that can free us from our dependence on foreign oil and keep our economy competitive in the years ahead.”

Granholm:

“I’m proposing a Michigan economic stimulus package — nearly a billion dollars for needed infrastructure and building improvements, creating upwards of 28,000 construction and other jobs over the next two years. A billion dollars in economic stimulus from new construction. But let me talk for a moment about one sector that has blockbuster potential for Michigan: alternative energy . . . . Because of the need to reduce global warming and end our dependence on expensive foreign oil, the renewable energy and energy efficiency industries will create millions of good paying jobs. I say we will win these jobs for Michigan and replace the lost manufacturing jobs with a whole new, growing sector.”

The echo is eerie (if Obama were Joe Biden, one might be suspicious of plagiarism).

And likely to get eerier still. How has Granholm gone about creating this new green economy? With mandates and targeted tax breaks — just as Obama will likely propose. Granholm spearheaded a state Renewable Power Standard that mandates 20 percent of Michigan's energy come from wind power by 2020, and she has showered tax breaks on alternative energy companies. Watch for Obama to do both on the national level.

The result has been a Michigan economy that has drowned under Granholm’s watch, with unemployment tripling to a nation-leading 9.3 percent at the same time that Michigan’s debilitating economic fundamentals — high taxes and overgenerous concessions to organized labor — have gone unaddressed. Granholm, however, has missed few opportunities for photo ops touting the companies that have benefiited from her tax handouts or her road-construction spending.
And she has landed a key position in Obama’s transition team, where she and the president-elect apparently agree that Granholmnomics is America’s future.

Thank you Democrats!

2008-11-19T08:50:00.000-08:00

In part 2 in a series of "tongue-in-cheek," snarky, smug, sarcastic remarks, I wanted gleefully offer up a hearty thank you to the Democrats. Yesterday, my salaciousness was directed to the corrupt, liberal Mainstream Media, for essentially distorting and filtering the news, as well as verbally fellating one President-Elect Barry Obama.

Today, my sardonic and caustic wit is directed to the Democrats, once a proud party of the working class. This group of out-of-touch politicians are doing everything within their party to destroy the very fabric of this country.

And it seems we're powerless to stop them.

Two examples come to mind.

First is the issue of "climate change." What this amounts to is nothing more than pandering on behalf of the Democrats, in this case to the environmentalists. In this article, courtesy of Townhall.com, President-elect Obama promises global leadership on climate change.

Why?

So much of the "consensus science" utilized by global warming fanacists is faulty AT BEST, doctored at worst. When will these "scientists" (I use that term loosely, as it seems many of a political agenda) realize that instead of getting warmer, the planet is actually cooling, that Arctic ice has been restored to its pre-2002 levels, and CO2 levels were higher (exponentially) than they were prior to the existence of humans (furthermore, CO2 levels on Mars are high as well; where are the humans?).

In the roughly four-minute message, Obama reiterated his support for a cap-and-trade system approach to cutting green house gases. He would establish annual targets to reduce emissions to their 1990 levels by 2020 and reduce them another 80 percent by 2050. Obama also promoted anew his proposal to invest $15 billion each year to support private sector efforts toward clean energy.

At a news conference Tuesday, a coalition called the U.S. Climate Action Partnership _ made up of 32 leading corporations, including electric utilities and oil companies, and environmental groups _ urged Obama to press Congress to approve legislation next year for a mandatory cap-and-trade system to limit the release of carbon dioxide from burning fossil fuels and other greenhouse gases. Opponents of such action argue controls on carbon dioxide emissions will increase energy costs.
Under a cap-and-trade program, the government would establish a ceiling on the amount of carbon dioxide that can be released into the air from burning fossil fuels. A utility or industrial plant would have to purchase emission allowances for every ton of pollution released. Anyone who exceeds the cap must either make pollution reductions or buy additional allowances, while those who cut emissions below the cap would be able to sell allowances. Initially the cap would be relatively high and then be lowered gradually to achieve the targeted pollution reductions.

So guess who suffers? The average American...how do you think these companies will pay for these allowance or penalties, by either laying off workers or RAISING PRICES on their wares.

It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure that out.

Second pertains to this autoworker's bailout plan. On top of a $700 billion "crap sandwich" (catchphrase courtesy of Michelle Malkin) taxpayers will soon be on the hook for an additional $25 billion to the struggling "Big 3" automobile manufacturers. Once again, the Democrats are pandering to the special interests: this time it's the unions.

Can someone tell me why we should bail a confederation that refuses to embrace what the marketplace dictates? Furthermore, why should the average American pay for a vehicle that costs thousands of dollars MORE compared to a foreign model yet is does not possess the features NOR quality that the aforementioned foreign car has?

Yet the Left implores us to "buy American!." Listen, we would all LOVE to buy American, but why? All we do is enable these auto manufacturers and unions in their "entitlement quest." Instead, it's time we hold them accountable (same with the idiot who bought a $300,000 home on a $30,000 wage, but that's another story for another time).

Ken Blackwell sums it up perfectly:

The Big 3’s woes are largely self-created. For years now their management has been criticized as ineffective. But two numbers tell the story of the primary cause of their insolvency: 73 and 48. The average hourly cost of an hourly wage worker for the Big 3 cost $73 per hour, while the average cost at Toyota and other foreign automakers with production facilities here on American soil is $48 per hour.
What accounts for this disparity? It’s the massive healthcare and pension costs and other benefits that the workers at the Big 3 get through their union-negotiated contracts. These contracts, primarily secured through the United Auto Workers, have created massive obligations. Consequently, the Big 3 either offer a product that is equal in quality and features to their foreign counterparts, but several thousand dollars more expensive per car, or they offer a product for the same price but with fewer features.
There’s no way to escape the plain truth. The costs unions have written into their contracts with the Big 3 must be passed along to consumers. As this either increases prices or decreases value, the Big 3 lose sales to foreign competitors, and so revenues for the Big 3 have dropped. As revenues drop it becomes even more difficult to pay these union-created obligations, so the situation worsens.

A hearty thanks to the Mainstream Media!

2008-11-18T12:21:00.000-08:00

On behalf of millions of easily assuaged Americans, I wanted to issue a public thank you to the Mainstream Media.

Oh you thought I was serious...

I am not, dear reader (not to be confused with what we'll seen refer to President-Elect Barry Obama as: Dear LEADER); nevertheless, I am not serious.

Frankly, I'm pissed.

I navigated over to this website, courtesy of renowned conservative author and mind, Michelle Malkin's site. I wasn't necessarily stunned at the intent of the website, but rather the message, notably the following:

Zogby Poll

512 Obama Voters 11/13/08-11/15/08 MOE +/- 4.4 points

97.1% High School Graduate or higher, 55% College Graduates

Results to 12 simple Multiple Choice Questions

57.4% could NOT correctly say which party controls congress (50/50 shot just by guessing)

81.8% could NOT correctly say Joe Biden quit a previous campaign because of plagiarism (25% chance by guessing)

82.6% could NOT correctly say that Barack Obama won his first election by getting opponents kicked off the ballot (25% chance by guessing)

88.4% could NOT correctly say that Obama said his policies would likely bankrupt the coal industry and make energy rates skyrocket (25% chance by guessing)

56.1% could NOT correctly say Obama started his political career at the home of two former members of the Weather Underground (25% chance by guessing).

And yet.....

Only 13.7% failed to identify Sarah Palin as the person on which their party spent $150,000 in clothes

Only 6.2% failed to identify Palin as the one with a pregnant teenage daughter

And 86.9 % thought that Palin said that she could see Russia from her "house," even though that was Tina Fey who said that!!

Only 2.4% got at least 11 correct.

Only .5% got all of them correct. (And we "gave" one answer that was technically not Palin, but actually Tina Fey)

My God people, what does this say about 1.) our mainstream media; 2.) over 50% of the voting populace?

Regarding the former, what more can be said that hasn't been about the mainstream media? It's not just that they're nauseatingly liberal, it's that they're corrupt as well. Furthermore, it's this gross negligence on their behalf to actually report the news that has further maddened those of us who read alternative news stories (i.e not JUST content disseminated from the MSM). For example, most Americans probably do not realize that Christians in California (notably WHITE Christians) are being harassed and assaulted by homosexual militants. Why, because these aforementioned militants have perceived Prop 8, banning gay marriage outright, to have been passed by white Christians.

Yet it doesn't occur to the supposed enlightened liberal homosexuals that the 70% of blacks and Hispanics who voted for Barack Obama also voted to ban gay marriage.

But where is the Mainstream Media?

No where to be found, naturally. They're off reporting on some elderly woman who spoke out against homosexuality.

Con Over

2008-11-15T08:34:00.000-08:00

Wall Street just ran the biggest con in history on the largest population in history: mortgage backed securities and derivatives. This multi-trillion dollar pile of paper is now approaching worthlessness and is bleeding red ink into the books of every financial entity in the land: individuals, businesses, pensions, and governments of all types. No one knows how to value either their own books or more importantly, how to evaluate a company they want to work with or invest in. No one knows how much of this toxic financial waste any institution is keeping on the books. Transparency is on the decline and opacity is on the rise. Credit is drying up and business is slowly grinding down all over the globe. Trust in the financial system and its instruments is being destroyed and could go to zero.

Yet so many keep to their investment routines as if nothing is amiss, that somehow this will blow over. I keep hearing the dreck on TV: buy the dips, we're at the bottom, market turnaround any day now. They keep saying it and many must still believe it. At work I hear how people are going to jump back in and buy the bargains, that stocks are so under priced now and how they are going to make a killing. They don't realize that they will be killed, that actually, they have already been killed. The game is over but no one can see it yet because the drone of the Wall Street con plays on, calming all like the inhabitants of an opium den.

The con by Wall Street is so smooth and has gone on for so long that no investor believes it can ever stop. No matter the extremes of the con, another con will be built on top of it and the game will go on and every one will continue to make money. This is the financial equivalent of the perpetual motion machine, a fallacy in science and equally fallacious in finance. Well, guess what? The ultimate con, derivatives by the trillions, has been played, the money is draining out of the world markets and IT IS NOT COMING BACK. The game is over. The playas know it even as they bilk the American taxpayers for billions more in executive bonuses and bailouts. Oh sure, some of them will play too long and get caught and hanged when the sheeple wake up, but they are being conned too, believing that their donations and lobbying efforts with government officials will buy them protection. It will, until it won't. When America wakes up, everything will be ripped to shreds in an orgy of destruction. No one will be able to stop it. Not guns, not martial law, not even the military.

So goes the death of the consumer economy, an absurd model that should never have been born. An economy is based on production and the trade of goods and services. How can eternal consumption ever be the basis of a nations wealth? It will work until the credit system can bear no more. Enter, stage right, the current era and the collapse of credit.

No replacement economy for this absurd consumerist economy is on deck. No plan is being made for the next economy. Our government flails in great incompetence, always in reaction, never in action. The con game goes on, everyone, even those conned, hoping it will never stop. But the inexorable law of credit and Ponzi financing are in play now. The consumer is broke and has no way to generate wealth. Credit is drying up. America has nothing to trade and stays afloat temporarily because the world believes the dollar must have value as their own currencies implode. Demand for the dollar is unprecedented but the emperor has no clothes. There is no longer any underlying value to FRN's. There is only the memory, the memory of the grand and golden days when the dollar ruled the world. When the world realizes that the historical dollar no longer exists and they are trading their worthless paper for our now worthless paper, the dollar will collapse.

At that point the American economy will collapse. In theory, commerce may come to a complete standstill since the currency has no value. It only represents an absurd amount of debt. With no value left in the country and most of our manufacturing capacity sent overseas, no one will loan us anything to help us return to the production economy. America will be a hissing to the world: the dollar collapse will also rob world economies of great wealth, impoverishing millions if not billions. Any misery or suffering we endure will be met with 'Serves you right.'

We, who for the most part only know how to consume goods and credit, must now bootstrap ourselves into a completely new way of life. A way of life undefined by any but a few apocalyptic authors. A way of life foreign to all of our institutions and most of our citizenry.

The entire population of the United States of America is about to become shell shocked by the severity of this bootstrapping process. The whole nation will be subjected to the same forces faced by soldiers on the front line. It's not going to be pretty. Many will go insane. Many more will turn violent. Most will try to adapt, to feel their way forward. Key utilities, such as power and water, may fail during this interim period, increasing suffering and death even more. Hunger will be a new companion for many.

Our enemies may take advantage of our discomfiture and attack or even invade us. The wrath of the world will fall upon our heads and no amount of pleading, begging, or cajoling will placate them. Their wrath must run its full course. Millions of Americans will die, directly or indirectly, during this world-wide bash America-a-thon. We will probably suffer nuclear strikes to our major cities. I only hope we can return tit-for-tat. Raiding parties to our shores may capture citizens and sell or keep them as slaves. No inhumanity will be spared Americans. The darkest days of history will be dredged for ways to humiliate, kill, and torture Americans.

The con of Wall Street is leading us to our soon destruction. It will not end until we have battled back to the America of our forefathers. The blood that will flow and the suffering endured will be of an epic scale. The Americans that survive will be the hardiest in the world. We will be like a nation of Navy Seals or Army Rangers or Marines. Anyone with a constitution weaker than these will perish.

We will rebuild but to a new blueprint. Wall Street will be banished forever. Usury will be a swear word. Banking will not exist. Government will be all about service and not about power. Anyone who shows anything less than the greatest humility as a public official will be shot, and shot again. Our eyes will be like flinty steel and our jaws firmly set. We will be all about personal responsibility. Righteousness, honesty, and integrity will be valued once more. We will be men and women of our word as we once were.

I only hope when the new blueprint is implemented, that clauses be added, as many as it takes, to make sure this never happens again. Great tomes will be written on the evil of usury and the glory of the paths of truth will be sung in every house. Everyone will be a guardian of the new blueprint and so it must be, ever watchful, that the insidious evil of 'something for nothing' does not arise for eternity in the blasted and cratered landscape of the reborn America.

Minnesota Update: Coleman's Lead Narrows...100 votes "located"

2008-11-07T05:46:00.001-08:00

Conveniently, 100 votes for Democratic challenger Al Franken were found in the Minnesota senate race.

According to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, "Just as Secretary of State Mark Ritchie was explaining to reporters the recount process in one of the narrowest elections in Minnesota history, an aide rushed in with news: Pine County's Partridge Township had revised its vote total upward -- another 100 votes for Democratic candidate Al Franken, putting him within .011 percentage points of Republican U.S. Sen. Norm Coleman."

Here's your liberal newspaper making excuses: "The reason for the change? Exhausted county officials had accidentally entered 24 for Franken instead of 124 when the county's final votes were tallied at 5:25 Wednesday morning."

Amazing...simply amazing.

Pine County is situated approximately 50 miles north of the Twin Cities. Are there even 100 people in Pine County?

A couple of notes: 1.) the recount hasn't even started yet; 2.) that a abusive, snarky comedian who helped tank Air America could be within a hair's breadth of a U.S Senate seat is truly frightening.

What this further validates is that the 2008 election, on a national, state, and local was a referendum against Republicans. Whether fair or not, the voters chose to "kick the bums" as I read in an article yesterday.

No thanks to corrupt, liberal mainstream manipulation, the Republicans were painted as enablers of greed, graft, and corruption, as well as the architects of the subprime housing meltdown, and the near-certain economic recession.

As for Coleman, I'm seriously worried. If 100 votes can magically appear...what are the odds he retains his seat.

Minnesota Update: Coleman claims victory/the Democrats will find some "uncounted" votes somewhere/where's ACORN when you need them

2008-11-05T11:28:00.000-08:00

Despite holding a 725 vote edge to Democratic challenger Al Franken, incumbent Republican Senator Norm Coleman today proclaimed victory in a tight, hotly-contested and vitriolic race, according to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune.

Sen. Norm Coleman late this morning declared victory for a second term from Minnesota, even as the wheels are churning toward an automatic recount of the nearly 3 million votes cast in his battle with Democrat Al Franken.

As a Minnesotan and a Republican, I don't know what was worse, an Obama presidency, or a Franken senatorial seat.

Actually, I thought of something worse than either: both winning.

As I'm sure most of you are, I'm absolutely sick of the endless political attack ads aired on BOTH sides of the political spectrum. In this case, I couldn't handle watching another Franken ad concocting a story about "Big Oil," "Wall Street Special Interests," or the "Bush Tax Cuts for the Rich."

Coleman's problem, as with other conservatives, is that this election was essentially a referendum AGAINST Republicans. The seeds were planted in the 2006 congressional races, when Democrats usurped Republican power, and ultimately carried them to a near liberal supermajority in executive and legislative branches.

It's been so bad for Republicans that an idiot, abusive, temperamental comedian (Franken) nearly unseated a fairly popular incumbent (Coleman).

Ultimately what worries me is that as one Star Tribune reader stated, "Why do I have a feeling the the Dems will "find" a couple of mis-placed boxes of uncounted ballots in the next day or two?"

If so, I'm sure ACORN is involved.

Yet, does it surprise you that Minnesota voters nearly approved the aforementioned angry comedian? After all, we did have an ex-professional wrestler as a governor.

The Day After: Keep standing up for what we believe is right

2008-11-05T11:01:00.000-08:00

Well, we on the Right were hit by a two-ton Mack truck last night, in the form of a new Democratic president, and a near-filibuster-proof Democratic Senate. Obviously, there are some silver linings: Democrats did NOT pick up enough Senate seats to ensure the ultimate nightmare: a TRUE liberal supermajority. Furthermore, Minnesota Republican Norm Coleman, despite a mandatory recount, is looking increasingly like he has staved off defeat from Democratic challenger Al Franken.

Over the past eight years, we've endured endless fabrication after fabrication from liberal fuckheads that Bush lied, he usurped the Constitution, he spied on all of us, he gave tax cuts to the rich. Those lies, propagated through a corrupt liberal mainstream media, ushered in a new era of Liberal power. The American populace was inundated with lie and lie from a medium that was clearly in the tank for Obama.

With that said, what happens, for example, our energy bills skyrocket due to cap and trade legislation? You can't blame the Republicans. What happens when wave after wave of suicide bomber hits targets inside the United States due to Obama capitulating in the war on terror? What happens when average Americans lose their job and are forced to pay higher taxes, because Obama instituted an inane economic policy that increased taxes on the rich/entrepreneurial class. The upper class, when forced to reduce emissions in their businesses and pay higher taxes, must lay off employees: the middle class.

Are we STILL going to blame Republicans?

Not this time. It's time to regroup, and usher in a new era of our own; one that includes fiscal and social conservatives. Furthermore, as countless conservative authors and pundits have reiterated, it's to toss out the trash: existing Republican leadership that was corrupt and facilitated a bereftness in the economy.

Moreover, we on the Right cannot tolerate sex scandals, bribery, fraud, misuse of funds, or special interests. To borrow a trite, overused cliche: if we're going to talk the talk, let's walk the walk.

We on the Right have to close ranks and clean up our act; we need to present a united front against Obama. We have to stand up for what we believe is right.

I'm hoping this loss will put steel in backbones and strengthen our resolve.

I have a feeling the Democrat leadership, under the auspices of Obama, Nancy Pelosi, and Harry Reid, are going to make it quite easy for us.

In Light of Democratic Win, a Ray of Hope

2008-11-04T10:27:00.000-08:00

Ugh...we stand on the verge of, as Townhall.com's Dennis Prager stated today, a radical transformation to this country. As a white, conservative, Christian, I brace for an apoplectic seizure from the Left, as they look to enact a pound of flesh from those of us who supported the "Bush Tax Cuts for the rich" and other Bush-measures over the past eight years.

I am, as many conservatives are, disheartened by the prospects of the most liberal President coupled with smashing Democratic majorities in both the House and the Senate.

Yet, do not despair, my friends.

I hereby predict that Obama will destroy every facet of this country that the pendulum will start to swing BACK to the center-right in time for the 2010 elections.

Unfortunately, I am despondent primarily because the American voting segment was utterly duped by 1.) the corrupt, liberal mainstream media; 2.) and the non-efforts from John McCain to educate the aforementioned populace on Obama's record.

It was a half-hearted effort a best to target Obama's absurd tax policies, his radical associations, his over-the-top liberal outlooks on abortion, gay marriage, energy, terrorism, etc. On top of that, Obama managed to indoctrinate a large swatch of young people, disenfranchised independents and Republicans, and Democratic basists with his "hope and change" rhetoric.

Nevermind that the only hope and change is going to occur to the Leftist wing nuts that would love to see this country become an extension of Western Europe.

Most of the country does NOT want to see the radical transformations Obama has in store for us, whether it's social-justice taught in our schools, the shoving of progressive values down our collective throats, the mass illegal immigration that will occur south of our borders (including OTM's), increased terror attacks, loss of jobs to due to inane cap-and-trade laws (based on complete scientific fabrications), etc.

And when the collective psyche of the American public takes a nose-dive, by all means, you can tell those snarky liberal bastards, "I told you so."

The Obama Tax Plan: People need to truly digest what this man is saying

2008-10-30T13:10:00.000-07:00

Charlton Heston, in his role as time traveler Taylor in the Planet of the Apes, utters to no one, "It's a mad house...a MAD HOUSE!!!"

Well, the economic house under a Obama presidency will be a mad one. Note that he wants us to revert back to Clinton-era taxes: 54% ALONE to the federal government. Couple that with Americans who do not pay taxes; 40% by some accounts, and we're giving them a refund.

On top of that, we've Obama and Joe Biden waver when it comes to which income brackets will pay through the nose in taxes. A year ago, we heard Obama say that he won't tax anyone making less than $1 million; six months ago, it was $500 thousand. Lately, we've heard him refine those numbers to anywhere between $200 thousand and $250 thousand. Then, FINALLY, we heard the Mr. Smirk, Biden, state that no one making less than $150 thousand will see their taxes increased.

Can you say DISASTER?

In a recent FOX News Dynamic Poll, 81% of Americans think that they should pay NO MORE than 30% of their income to taxes. Yet, by a 51%-39% margin, people trust Obama to fix the economy.

HUH?

We cannot trust the numbers.

We've heard mistruths uttered from the Democrats on an endless basis. We've heard that Bush gave the rich tax truths while hurting the middle class. That is a complete fabrication. Note the following from David Limbaugh:

How can these class-warfare demagogues sleep at night saying the rich don't pay their fair share when 2006 official figures show the top 1 percent of income earners pay 40 percent of the income taxes; the top 5 percent pay 60 percent; the top 10 percent pay 71 percent; the top 25 percent, 86 percent; and the top 50 percent, 97 percent? Just how much would the wealthy have to pay for it to be fair?

Furthermore, when increase taxes on the rich, you punish the middle and lower classes. Why you ask? Because the rich are the entrepreneurial class; they invest money in businesses. These investments usually come in the form of JOBS...jobs for people in the middle and lower classes.

If this entrepreneurial class does NOT invest money, what will happen to the jobs? They'll disappear. That's common sense, something Obama and his cultists REFUSE to understand.

Moreover, what the Obama crowd cannot understand is that if you LOWER taxes, you create revenue. Would Americans rather have a JOB or have some $500 rebate check. Almost certainly under an Obama presidency, you cannot have both.

Wake up people; this man is the worst thing that can happen to this country. Are you listening to what

Liberals and their Democratic Enablers: INTENTIONALLY trying to destroy this country?

2008-10-28T10:41:00.000-07:00

Consider this the "darkest before the dawn" edition.

I've read a slew of soothsayer articles from the likes of David Limbaugh, Pat Buchanon, etc, forecasting Barry Soetoro/Dunham/Obama's first 100 days as President would entail, coupled with an near-certain Democratic increase in Congress.

The prognostications are truly scary for those of us on the Right, whether's it's the "wealth redistribution," repeal of Marriage Defense Act, enactment of Freedom of Choice Act, increased SHOVING of progressive values down our throat, open borders, etc.

It's pretty clear that an Obama presidency and filibuster-proof Democratic Congress could have drastic consequences for this country; couple that with the potential for Obama to fill anywhere from three to four vacant Supreme Court spots, and the possibilities are truly frightening.

Here's what Buchanon portends in an Obama presidency and filibuster proof Congress:

What does the triumvirate of Obama-Pelosi-Reid offer?
Rep. Barney Frank is calling for new tax hikes on the most successful and a 25 percent across-the-board slash in national defense. Sen. John Kerry is talking up new and massive federal spending, a la FDR's New Deal. Specifically, we can almost surely expect:
-- Swift amnesty for 12 million to 20 million illegal aliens and a drive to make them citizens and register them, as in the Bill Clinton years. This will mean that Nevada, Colorado, New Mexico and Arizona will soon move out of reach for GOP presidential candidates, as has California.
-- Border security will go on the backburner, and America will have a virtual open border with a Mexico of 110 million.
-- Taxes will be raised on the top 5 percent of wage-earners, who now carry 60 percent of the U.S. income tax burden, and tens of millions of checks will be sent out to the 40 percent of wage-earners who pay no federal income tax. Like the man said, redistribute the wealth, spread it around.
-- Social Security taxes will be raised on the most successful among us, and capital gains taxes will be raised from 15 percent to 20 percent. The Bush tax cuts will be repealed, and death taxes reimposed.
-- Two or three more liberal activists of the Ruth Bader Ginsberg-John Paul Stevens stripe will be named to the Supreme Court. U.S. district and appellate courts will be stacked with "progressives."
-- Special protections for homosexuals will be written into all civil rights laws, and gays and lesbians in the military will be invited to come out of the closet. "Don't ask, don't tell" will be dead.
-- The homosexual marriages that state judges have forced California, Massachusetts and Connecticut to recognize, an Obama Congress or Obama court will require all 50 states to recognize.
-- A "Freedom of Choice Act" nullifying all state restrictions on abortions will be enacted. America will become the most pro-abortion nation on earth.
-- Affirmative action -- hiring and promotions based on race, sex and sexual orientation until specified quotas are reached -- will be rigorously enforced throughout the U.S. government and private sector.
-- Universal health insurance will be enacted, covering legal and illegal immigrants, providing another powerful magnet for the world to come to America, if necessary by breaching her borders.
-- A federal bailout of states and municipalities to keep state and local governments spending up could come in December or early next year.
-- The first trillion-dollar deficit will be run in the first year of an Obama presidency. It will be the first of many.

As a Christian Conservative, I'm almost preparing myself to worship my God in secret and essentially go "underground."

The BRIGHT side, contrary to what conservative pundits like Michael Medved believe, is that we WILL get so disgusted with the miserable circumstances under a blanket Democratic leadership that we WILL throw these disgusting sons of bitches OUT of office.

After some deliberation and reading from the authors like the aforementioned Limbaugh and Buchanon, and I ponder openly: are the liberals attempting to destroy this country? I mean, they HAVE to know what the potential consequences would be of there actions, right? They can't be THAT stupid...

Can they?

Yesterday's Syrian Raid will be a thing of the past in an Obama presidency

2008-10-28T06:58:00.001-07:00

Oh how soon we forget.

According to media sources, a senior Al Qaeda leader was killed by a U.S. forces in Syria.

Naturally, Democratic presidential candidate Barry Soetoro/Dunham/Obama and his crew are furious. That shouldn't be surprising.

We've seen tepid, emasculated responses from Democratic presidents in the past (see: Jimmy Carter/Bill Clinton), so it should come as no surprise that 1.) Obama would rather engage terrorist fomenters in "dialogue;" 2.) this is a portent of an Obama foreign policy.

So what does this mean?

We'll be back to square one with Obama; we'll be relegated to pre-Bush days when the previous administration allowed ourselves to bullied by Islamic fundamentalists and when forced to retaliate, offered nothing more than a token military gesture.

Furthermore, in an Obama presidency where dialogue in the only option, terrorist groups like Al Qaeda will be allowed to reconstitute, once again becoming a threat not only in the Middle East, but to our national security.

Again.

We're weakening ourselves again. This is like a bad dream, replayed over and over again. We've been down this road before under Bill Clinton, where a liberal administration consternated over political and legal ramifications of staving off the terrorist threat. We're already experienced the feeling of retreating, with our tail between our legs, and the feeling of not hitting back HARD against aggression and violence against Americans and its interests.

Couple that with the near-certainty of Obama closing Guantanamo Bay and stopping military tribunals against terrorists, as well as the eradication of the Patriot Act; I think we can guarantee that we'll see attacks increase.

Say what you will about George Bush, but he kept us safe. Terrorists, domestic and international, were cut off at the pass. They weren't allowed to develop nor implement their plots.

Massachusetts: Judges and ACLU at it again

2008-10-28T06:28:00.000-07:00

In the perverse world of the liberal, criminals are canonized; victims are ostracized.

It's bizarro world in liberal land, where you say goodbye upon greeting, and hello upon leaving.

According to AM 1280 the Patriot, a Massachusetts judge has "has ruled that parts of Missouri's new law restricting registered sex offenders' actions on Halloween night are unenforceable, saying the law lacked clarity and could cause confusion for sex offenders and those charged with enforcing it."

After hearing arguments in a case brought by four sex offenders, U.S. District Judge Carol Jackson on Monday granted a preliminary injunction barring enforcement of some parts of the law.

(O)ther aspects of the statute were too broad and raise questions, the judge said.
For example, Jackson said, may a sex offender have contact with his or her own children on Halloween? Passing out candy is clearly prohibited, but what else constitutes Halloween-related contact? And if a sex offender planned to be out of town on Halloween, he or she would not technically be "inside the home" as the law requires, Jackson pointed out.
The law allows sex offenders to leave home on Halloween night if there is "just cause" such as work or an emergency, but Jackson criticized the measure for failing to define the term more clearly.
Such vagueness would cause confusion among sex offenders, police and prosecutors, she said.

First, we have an activist judge defying common sense and the welfare of the general public. In her own odd interpretation, she's essentially given sex offenders carte blanche to do whatever they want on Halloween.

Second, the ACLU has naturally interjected itself into the fray; once again siding with the perpetrator rather than the criminal:

The injunction stemmed from a lawsuit brought by the American Civil Liberties Union of Eastern Missouri. Attorney Dave Nelson called the law's requirements a "scarlet letter" for sex offenders. He said the statute also results in additional punishment by requiring what amounts to "house arrest" one day each year.

Too bad. We're talking sex offenders that, if allowed, would commit indescribable actions towards youngsters if allowed. Yet, "civil liberty" groups like ACLU fight for their rights. What rights do they possess? These people have committed arguably some of the most egregious acts in judicial history, and instead of focusing concern on the potential victim, the ACLU is instead defending the criminal.

Further blatant MSM bias: LA Times suppresses Obama's Khalidi bash tape

2008-10-27T13:03:00.000-07:00

Andrew McCarthy, courtesy of the National Review, provides analysis of yet another blatant attempt from the corrupt, liberal mainstream media to deliberately suppress negative press for "Dear Leader."

In case you haven't noticed, "Dear Leader" is term that is synonymous with "The Chosen One," "The One," "The Messiah," "The Obamessiah," etc. The aforementioned glowing nicknames are those bestowed on Democratic presidential candidate, Barry Soetoro/Dunham, Obama.

But one can't be surprised that the mainstream media has refused to publish a potentially damaging story to said Dear Leader. Whether it's Obama and Infanticide, his support for domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, his marination in Jeremiah Wright's hate, his welfare redistribution, his Gods and Guns remark, the embarrassing institution known as the Mainstream Media, would rather focus on, as McCarthy states in his article, Sarah Palin's wardrobe, Joe the Plumber's money problems, or an absolutely isolated case of some idiot stealing an Obama sign from someone's front lawn.

It's almost laughable how "in-the-bag" the MSM is in for Obama. But yet it's not funny, because the very future of our country is as stack. Couple the possibility of elected the most liberal Democrat in presidential history with the notion of a filibuster proof Democratic majority in Congress, and the Marxist possibilities exist.

I stated this morning that with the way so many Americans have greedily lapped up his charismatic, quixotic message, Obama is more geared to be a cult leader or dictator.

I digress; the latest MSM "non-story" comes courtesy of the Los Angeles Times: "Why is the Los Angeles Times sitting on a videotape of the 2003 farewell bash in Chicago at which Barack Obama lavished praise on the guest of honor, Rashid Khalidi — former mouthpiece for master terrorist Yasser Arafat?"

Again, if this was someone on the Right lavishing praise for Eric Rudolph, would the corrupt leftist MSM even bat an eye at running story on every front page, and opening segment of the nightly news?

Not bloody likely.

With Obama, it should be no surprise he cavorts with terrorists; he's right at time associating with people like Khalidi and Ayers.

Here's the complete story:

The L.A. Times Suppresses Obama’s Khalidi Bash Tape
Obama, Ayers, and PLO supporters toast Edward Said’s successor, but the press doesn’t think it’s quite as newsworthy as Sarah Palin’s wardrobe.

By Andrew C. McCarthy

Let’s try a thought experiment. Say John McCain attended a party at which known racists and terror mongers were in attendance. Say testimonials were given, including a glowing one by McCain for the benefit of the guest of honor ... who happened to be a top apologist for terrorists. Say McCain not only gave a speech but stood by, in tacit approval and solidarity, while other racists and terror mongers gave speeches that reeked of hatred for an American ally and rationalizations of terror attacks.

Now let’s say the Los Angeles Times obtained a videotape of the party.

Question: Is there any chance — any chance — the Times would not release the tape and publish front-page story after story about the gory details, with the usual accompanying chorus of sanctimony from the oped commentariat? Is there any chance, if the Times was the least bit reluctant about publishing (remember, we’re pretending here), that the rest of the mainstream media (y’know, the guys who drove Trent Lott out of his leadership position over a birthday-party toast) would not be screaming for the release of the tape?

Do we really have to ask?

So now, let’s leave thought experiments and return to reality: Why is the Los Angeles Times sitting on a videotape of the 2003 farewell bash in Chicago at which Barack Obama lavished praise on the guest of honor, Rashid Khalidi — former mouthpiece for master terrorist Yasser Arafat?

At the time Khalidi, a PLO adviser turned University of Chicago professor, was headed east to Columbia. There he would take over the University’s Middle East-studies program (which he has since maintained as a bubbling cauldron of anti-Semitism) and assume the professorship endowed in honor of Edward Sayyid, another notorious terror apologist.

The party featured encomiums by many of Khalidi’s allies, colleagues, and friends, including Barack Obama, then an Illinois state senator, and Bill Ayers, the terrorist turned education professor. It was sponsored by the Arab American Action Network (AAAN), which had been founded by Khalidi and his wife, Mona, formerly a top English translator for Arafat’s press agency.

Is there just a teeny-weenie chance that this was an evening of Israel-bashing Obama would find very difficult to explain? Could it be that the Times, a pillar of the Obamedia, is covering for its guy?

Gateway Pundit reports that the Times has the videotape but is suppressing it.

Back in April, the Times published a gentle story about the fete. Reporter Peter Wallsten avoided, for example, any mention of the inconvenient fact that the revelers included Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, Ayers’s wife and fellow Weatherman terrorist. These self-professed revolutionary Leftists are friendly with both Obama and Khalidi — indeed, researcher Stanley Kurtz has noted that Ayers and Khalidi were “best friends.” (And — small world! — it turns out that the Obamas are extremely close to the Khalidis, who have reportedly babysat the Obama children.)

Nor did the Times report the party was thrown by AAAN. Wallsten does tell us that the AAAN received grants from the Leftist Woods Fund when Obama was on its board — but, besides understating the amount (it was $75,000, not $40,000), the Times mentions neither that Ayers was also on the Woods board at the time nor that AAAN is rabidly anti-Israel. (Though the organization regards Israel as illegitimate and has sought to justify Palestinian terrorism, Wallsten describes the AAAN as “a social service group.”)

Perhaps even more inconveniently, the Times also let slip that it had obtained a videotape of the party.

Wallsten’s story is worth excerpting at length (italics are mine):

It was a celebration of Palestinian culture — a night of music, dancing and a dash of politics. Local Arab Americans were bidding farewell to Rashid Khalidi, an internationally known scholar, critic of Israel and advocate for Palestinian rights, who was leaving town for a job in New York.

A special tribute came from Khalidi's friend and frequent dinner companion, the young state Sen. Barack Obama. Speaking to the crowd, Obama reminisced about meals prepared by Khalidi's wife, Mona, and conversations that had challenged his thinking.

His many talks with the Khalidis, Obama said, had been "consistent reminders to me of my own blind spots and my own biases. . . . It's for that reason that I'm hoping that, for many years to come, we continue that conversation — a conversation that is necessary not just around Mona and Rashid's dinner table," but around "this entire world."...

[T]he warm embrace Obama gave to Khalidi, and words like those at the professor's going-away party, have left some Palestinian American leaders believing that Obama is more receptive to their viewpoint than he is willing to say.

Their belief is not drawn from Obama's speeches or campaign literature, but from comments that some say Obama made in private and from his association with the Palestinian American community in his hometown of Chicago, including his presence at events where anger at Israeli and U.S. Middle East policy was freely expressed.

At Khalidi's 2003 farewell party, for example, a young Palestinian American recited a poem accusing the Israeli government of terrorism in its treatment of Palestinians and sharply criticizing U.S. support of Israel. If Palestinians cannot secure their own land, she said, "then you will never see a day of peace."

One speaker likened "Zionist settlers on the West Bank" to Osama bin Laden, saying both had been "blinded by ideology."

Obama adopted a different tone in his comments and called for finding common ground. But his presence at such events, as he worked to build a political base in Chicago, has led some Palestinian leaders to believe that he might deal differently with the Middle East than … his opponents for the White House....

At Khalidi's going-away party in 2003, the scholar lavished praise on Obama, telling the mostly Palestinian American crowd that the state senator deserved their help in winning a U.S. Senate seat. "You will not have a better senator under any circumstances," Khalidi said.

The event was videotaped, and a copy of the tape was obtained by The Times.

Though Khalidi has seen little of Sen. Obama in recent years, Michelle Obama attended a party several months ago celebrating the marriage of the Khalidis' daughter.

In interviews with The Times, Khalidi declined to discuss specifics of private talks over the years with Obama. He did not begrudge his friend for being out of touch, or for focusing more these days on his support for Israel — a stance that Khalidi calls a requirement to win a national election in the U.S., just as wooing Chicago's large Arab American community was important for winning local elections.

So why is the Times sitting on the videotape of the Khalidi festivities? Given Obama's (preposterous) claims that he didn’t know Ayers that well and was unfamiliar with Ayers’s views, why didn't the Times report that Ayers and Dohrn were at the bash? Was it not worth mentioning the remarkable coincidence that both Obama and Ayers — the “education reform” allies who barely know each other … except to the extent they together doled out tens of millions of dollars to Leftist agitators, attacked the criminal justice system, and raved about each others books — just happen to be intimate friends of the same anti-American Israel-basher? (Despite having watched the videotape, Wallsten told Gateway Pundit he “did not know” whether Ayers was there.)

Why won’t the Times tell us what was said in the various Khalidi testimonials? On that score, Ayers and Dohrn have always had characteristically noxious views on the Israeli/Palestinian dispute. And, true to form, they have always been quite open about them. There is no reason to believe those views have ever changed. Here, for example, is what they had to say in Prairie Fire, the Weather Underground’s 1974 Communist manifesto (emphasis in original):

Palestinian independence is opposed with reactionary schemes by Jordan, completely opposed with military terror by Israel, and manipulated by the U.S. The U.S.-sponsored notion of stability and status-quo in the Mideast is an attempt to preserve U.S. imperialist control of oil, using zionist power as the cat's paw. The Mideast has become a world focus of struggles over oil resources and control of strategic sea and air routes. Yet the Palestinian struggle is at the heart of other conflicts in the Mideast. Only the Palestinians can determine the solution which reflects the aspirations of the Palestinian people. No "settlements" in the Mideast which exclude the Palestinians will resolve the conflict. Palestinian liberation will not be suppressed.

The U.S. people have been seriously deceived about the Palestinians and Israel. This calls for a campaign to educate and focus attention on the true situation: teach-ins, debates, and open clear support for Palestinian liberation; reading about the Palestinian movement—The Disinherited by Fawaz Turki, Enemy of the Sun; opposing U.S. aid to Israel. Our silence or acceptance of pro-zionist policy is a form of complicity with U.S.-backed aggression and terror, and a betrayal of internationalism.

SELF-DETERMINATION FOR THE PALESTINIAN PEOPLE!

U.S. OUT OF THE MIDEAST!

END AID TO ISRAEL!

Barack Obama wouldn’t possibly let something like that pass without a spirited defense of the Israel he tells us he so staunchly supports … would he? I guess to answer that question, we’d have to know what was on the tape.

But who has time for such trifles? After all, isn’t Diana Vreeland about to critique Sarah Palin’s sartorial splendor?

— National Review’s Andrew C. McCarthy chairs the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies’s Center for Law & Counterterrorism and is the author of Willful Blindness: A Memoir of the Jihad (Encounter Books 2008).

An Obama Presidency: our "Barabbas" moment

2008-10-27T06:31:00.000-07:00

That's where we as a nation have arrived. The masses have lustily drank the kool-aid, ignoring every warning and red flag.

We're on the cusp of an "Obama Nation." We've ignored Joe the Plumber, Bill Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, and other episodes from this demented reality show.

After watching a recent Obama rally, I was reminded of a scene in "The Passion of the Christ," where Pontius Pilate when faced with angry mob, asks whom he release from custody, Jesus of Nazareth or Barabbas. According to various books of the Bible, "the crowd chose Barabbas to be released and Jesus of Nazareth to be crucified. A passage found only in the Gospel of Matthew^[2] has the crowd saying, 'Let his blood be upon us and upon our children.'"

That seems to be where we are with a potential Obama presidency. The populace has so taken to Obama's "hope and change" rhetoric, that we're completely blind to the man's shortcoming, his associations, and his socialist message. We're essentially giving common sense and rationality a giant collective middle finger.

"Let his blood be upon us and upon our children."

For the "proverbial" bloodshed will be great after Obama passes draconian tax measures, enacts the Freedom of Choice Act, ushers in the Fairness Doctrine, enforce wealth redistribution, repeals the Marriage Defense Act, and pushes Congress to pass cap-and-trade environmental laws.

As Mark Levin from the National Review states, "I honestly never thought we'd see such a thing in our country - not yet anyway - but I sense what's occurring in this election is a recklessness and abandonment of rationality that has preceded the voluntary surrender of liberty and security in other places."

Is this man running for the office of Presidency of the United States, cult leader, or dictator? Where is the humility that other presidents before him have demonstrated? Through so many of his actions, Obama has displayed an air of superiority to working class people.

There is a cult-like atmosphere around Barack Obama, which his campaign has carefully and successfully fabricated, which concerns me. The messiah complex. Fainting audience members at rallies. Special Obama flags and an Obama presidential seal. A graphic with the portrayal of the globe and Obama's name on it, which adorns everything from Obama's plane to his street literature. Young school children singing songs praising Obama. Teenagers wearing camouflage outfits and marching in military order chanting Obama's name and the professions he is going to open to them. An Obama world tour, culminating in a speech in Berlin where Obama proclaims we are all citizens of the world. I dare say, this is ominous stuff.

So what's in store for us under an Obama presidency? Levin adds the following:

Obama's entire campaign is built on class warfare and human envy. The "change" he peddles is not new. We've seen it before. It is change that diminishes individual liberty for the soft authoritarianism of socialism. It is a populist appeal that disguises government mandated wealth redistribution as tax cuts for the middle class, falsely blames capitalism for the social policies and government corruption (Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac) that led to the current turmoil in our financial markets, fuels contempt for commerce and trade by stigmatizing those who run successful small and large businesses, and exploits human imperfection as a justification for a massive expansion of centralized government. Obama's appeal to the middle class is an appeal to the "the proletariat," as an infamous philosopher once described it, about which a mythology has been created. Rather than pursue the American Dream, he insists that the American Dream has arbitrary limits, limits Obama would set for the rest of us — today it's $250,000 for businesses and even less for individuals. If the individual dares to succeed beyond the limits set by Obama, he is punished for he's now officially "rich." The value of his physical and intellectual labor must be confiscated in greater amounts for the good of the proletariat (the middle class). And so it is that the middle class, the birth-child of capitalism, is both celebrated and enslaved — for its own good and the greater good. The "hope" Obama represents, therefore, is not hope at all. It is the misery of his utopianism imposed on the individual.

We've fallen victim to (H)is quixotic message. It sounds so alluring, so intoxicating. So much so that we've ignored the blinding warning lights. Let us usher in a socialist era, and the let the blood be upon our children.

For it will be generations that suffer from an Obama nation.

Townhall's Burt Prelutsky offers the same questions:

Why are so many Americans so eager to accept that corporations are the enemy when corporations not only provide employment, but pay dividends to tens of millions of middle-class Americans either directly or through their pension funds? Why are the same folks who are waging war on corporate America so reluctant to utter even an unkind word about Islamic terrorism? I realize that a lot of people get upset when CEOs get paid a ton of a money, particularly when it comes in the form of a golden parachute. But why don’t they get equally upset when a movie actor who’s generally a liberal gets paid $20 million to star in a movie that tanks?

Vote NO on Minnesota Clean Water, Land, and Legacy Amendment

2008-10-27T06:04:00.000-07:00

Here in the Democratic stronghold of Minnesota, we voters are presented with a slew of interesting senatorial races and initiatives, notably the Minnesota Clean Water, Land, and Legacy Act.

According to the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources, "The current general sales and use tax rate is 6.5%. Sales tax revenue is deposited in the state General Fund. If the ballot question passes, it would increase the general sales and use tax rate by three-eighths of one percentage point (0.375%) to 6.875%."

We're witnessing these sorts of environmental initiatives dictate dominate our lives, when things like the economy, national security, energy, border security, social security, health insurance, supersede these trivial environmental matters. The environmentalists, if given tacit approval, will tax us to death 1.) to impose these draconian measures; 2.) send us, economically and developmentally, back to the Stone Age; 3.) lower our productivity (and thus our GDP) through bogus global warming claims.

Furthermore, as Paul Gilje, coordinator of the Civic Cause think-thank states, enacting this store of legislation could open a proverbial pandora's box: "Gilje likes the outdoors, the environment, and the arts but doesn't like the precedent. He said a vote for the amendment would open the door to California-style government by referendum.

'What we've got to do is get the legislators to remain on the hook for their decisions,' he said. 'They've got to make the decisions, rather than passing them off on you and me.'"

Is this worth a constitutional amendment? Hell no. Furthermore, it typifies the brazen arrogance of the environmentalists when, as the WCCO story above reports, it will "only" cost us a dollar a week. That's $52 a week, perhaps to some, a mere pittance.

Moreover, the wording of the act itself is ambiguous. It seems to create a slush fund of sorts; how will this money be spent? Where will the proceeds of the tax itself be used?

Finally, we've heard, ad nauseum, that Republicans like Norm Coleman, Erik Paulsen, and Michelle Bachmann, have take large sums of money from lobbyists (big oil, Wall Street, etc.). But what about those that have lobbied FOR this bill? These same elected officials (*cough* Democrat) have decided to heed to special interest groups that keep them in power and have affectively endorsed a misleading campaign that is telling people if they vote YES they will be helping to fund clean up of our water.

This is NOT the economic climate to be enacting these sorts of measures.

Personally, I can think of several other things that I can use the $52 for.

Liberal Lies: the Bush Tax Cuts

2008-10-24T08:55:00.001-07:00

It's a daily occurrence to open up the newspapers, turn on the news, watch a campaign ad and hear some bonehead Democrat uttering inane references to "big oil" and "disastrous Bush tax cuts." Subsequently, said bonehead Democrat impugns either Republican colleague or opponent in a political office with the above mentioned issues.

The Democrats have excelled at propagating lies and turning them against the Republicans. Whether it's the subprime housing market (Republican Wall Street vs. Democrats/liberals forcing banks to make bank loans) or high gas prices (billions of dollars in oil company profits vs. Economics 101: SUPPLY and DEMAND and high taxes against the oil companies), the Democrats have issued inane fabrication after fabrication.

What's further maddening is that Republicans have rarely uttered a rebuttal, or attempted to truly educate the public on these hot buttons. Moreover, the corrupt liberal mainstream media has not fact-checked any of these Democrat-issued lies; instead they've enabled the mistruths through the various mediums.

Yesterday, I discussed the lies of "big oil," primarily, propagated by idiots like Stuart Smalley, er, Al Franken against incumbent Minnesota Senator, Republican Norm Coleman. In a recent TV campaign ad, Franken smugly reminds the viewing public that Coleman took campaign contributions from "big oil" lobbyists. Nevermind that his colleagues, such as Chris Dodd, Barney Frank, and "The One" Barry Soetoro/Dunham/Obama took hundreds of thousands of dollars from Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae to avert their eyes to the then-portending housing crisis, or that Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has enjoyed hundreds of thousands of dollars in campaign contributions from various alternative energy providers (saving the planet, my ass).

The point here, people, is that mistruths and outright lies are being uttered ad nauseum by the Left. Today, I want to focus on the "disastrous Bush Tax Cuts." We've heard "The One," Obama, in his hope and change rhetoric, gain support by lying about the "disastrous Bush Tax Cuts." Personally in Minnesota, I've seen/heard a handful of ads from Smalley, er, Franken, indicting Coleman for supporting the "disastrous Bush Tax Cuts."

Furthermore, we're seen/heard the same Democrats proclaim that these tax cuts have benefited the rich while handicapping the poor. Note the following from columnist David Limbaugh:

(I)t is an objective fact that Bush gave greater percentage cuts to lower-income earners than to the wealthy.
How can these class-warfare demagogues sleep at night saying the rich don't pay their fair share when 2006 official figures show the top 1 percent of income earners pay 40 percent of the income taxes; the top 5 percent pay 60 percent; the top 10 percent pay 71 percent; the top 25 percent, 86 percent; and the top 50 percent, 97 percent? Just how much would the wealthy have to pay for it to be fair?
The more the wealthy pay the more actual dollars they will retain when there are marginal rate cuts, even when the rates of lower-income earners are cut more.

Let's be candid here people; the economy isn't in the shape it's in because of the "disastrous Bush Tax Cuts." True, the Bush Administration increased spending significantly, borrowing money from overseas investors; the dollar is weak, and we're engaged in two wars. The problem is NOT the tax cuts, instead it's the spending. Note the following from John Hawkins:

Liberals regularly claim that revenue from tax cuts must be "made up" somehow, which ignores the fact that government revenue usually goes up after tax cuts.
That was certainly the case after the Bush, Kennedy, and Reagan tax cuts, which makes perfect sense if you understand the Laffer Curve.
There are lots of intelligent arguments that you can make about taxes. You can argue that tax raises may also increase revenue, that tax cuts may reduce the size of the future increase in revenue the government will receive, or that we could eventually cut taxes so dramatically that they would no longer yield revenue increases, but clearly the last few major tax cuts we've had have produced increases in federal revenue, not decreases.

We've also heard "The One" Obama promise to cut taxes for 95% of American people; nevermind that 30-40% of Americans do NOT pay taxes. What that means is that he's going to be giving refund checks to people who do not pay taxes. How's he going to do that? By taxing the rich, and "spreading the wealth."

That's called socialism.

You don't do that in a sinking economy unless you want the economy to sink even further. Theoretically, you CUT taxes, especially capital gains taxes and those on businesses. I'm sorry you have to hear this, liberal boneheads, but the upper class invest; they're entreprenurial opportunities end up increasing jobs and OPPORTUNITIES for Americans. You raise taxes on the rich, they cut back on investment and job creation.

Moreover, per the Kennedy, Reagan, and Bush tax cuts, the economy actually grows and accumulates more revenue.

In his latest column, Charles Wheeler explains why cutting taxes absolutely, positively, cannot lead to more revenue flowing into the treasury as a result of the economy being stimulated:
"Economist Arthur Laffer made a very interesting supposition: If tax rates are high enough, then cutting taxes might actually generate more revenue for the government, or at least pay for themselves. (In one of life's great coincidences, he first sketched a graph of this idea on Dick Cheney's cocktail napkin.) If the government cuts taxes, then Uncle Sam gets a smaller cut of all economic activity -- but reducing taxes also generates new economic activity. Laffer reasoned that, under some circumstances, a tax cut would stimulate so much new economic activity that the government would end up with more in its coffers -- by taking a smaller slice of a much larger pie.
...Think about a simple numerical example: Assume you've got a $10 trillion economy and an average tax rate of 30 percent. So the government takes $3 trillion.
Let's cut the average tax rate to 25 percent and, for the sake of example, assume that it generates $1 trillion in new economic growth (a Herculean assumption, by the way). So now, what does Uncle Sam get? One quarter of $11 trillion is only $2.75 trillion. The economy grows, government revenues shrink.
That's basically what happened with the large Reagan and George W. Bush tax cuts, both of which were followed by large budget deficits. Yes, spending has a lot to do with that, but the bottom line is unequivocal: In both cases, government revenue was lower than it would have been without the tax cuts.

Read the following; this article sums up the BENEFITS of lowering taxes; isn't it amazing how STUPID liberals actually are?

There is a distinct pattern throughout American history: When tax rates are reduced, the economy’s growth rate improves and living standards increase. Good tax policy has a number of interesting side effects. For instance, history tells us that tax revenues grow and “rich” taxpayers pay more tax when marginal tax rates are slashed. This means lower income citizens bear a lower share of the tax burden – a consequence that should lead class-warfare politicians to support lower tax rates.

Conversely, periods of higher tax rates are associated with sub par economic performance and stagnant tax revenues. In other words, when politicians attempt to “soak the rich,” the rest of us take a bath. Examining the three major United States episodes of tax rate reductions can prove useful lessons.

1) Lower tax rates do not mean less tax revenue.

The tax cuts of the 1920s
Tax rates were slashed dramatically during the 1920s, dropping from over 70 percent to less than 25 percent. What happened? Personal income tax revenues increased substantially during the 1920s, despite the reduction in rates. Revenues rose from $719 million in 1921 to $1164 million in 1928, an increase of more than 61 percent.

According to then-Treasury Secretary Andrew Mellon:

The history of taxation shows that taxes which are inherently excessive are not paid. The high rates inevitably put pressure upon the taxpayer to withdraw his capital from productive business and invest it in tax-exempt securities or to find other lawful methods of avoiding the realization of taxable income. The result is that the sources of taxation are drying up; wealth is failing to carry its share of the tax burden; and capital is being diverted into channels which yield neither revenue to the Government nor profit to the people.

The Kennedy tax cuts
President Hoover dramatically increased tax rates in the 1930s and President Roosevelt compounded the damage by pushing marginal tax rates to more than 90 percent. Recognizing that high tax rates were hindering the economy, President Kennedy proposed across-the-board tax rate reductions that reduced the top tax rate from more than 90 percent down to 70 percent. What happened? Tax revenues climbed from $94 billion in 1961 to $153 billion in 1968, an increase of 62 percent (33 percent after adjusting for inflation).

According to President John F. Kennedy:

Our true choice is not between tax reduction, on the one hand, and the avoidance of large Federal deficits on the other. It is increasingly clear that no matter what party is in power, so long as our national security needs keep rising, an economy hampered by restrictive tax rates will never produce enough revenues to balance our budget just as it will never produce enough jobs or enough profits… In short, it is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now.

The Reagan tax cuts
Thanks to “bracket creep,” the inflation of the 1970s pushed millions of taxpayers into higher tax brackets even though their inflation-adjusted incomes were not rising. To help offset this tax increase and also to improve incentives to work, save, and invest, President Reagan proposed sweeping tax rate reductions during the 1980s. What happened? Total tax revenues climbed by 99.4 percent during the 1980s, and the results are even more impressive when looking at what happened to personal income tax revenues. Once the economy received an unambiguous tax cut in January 1983, income tax revenues climbed dramatically, increasing by more than 54 percent by 1989 (28 percent after adjusting for inflation).

According to then-U.S. Representative Jack Kemp (R-NY), one of the chief architects of the Reagan tax cuts:

At some point, additional taxes so discourage the activity being taxed, such as working or investing, that they yield less revenue rather than more. There are, after all, two rates that yield the same amount of revenue: high tax rates on low production, or low rates on high production.

2) The rich pay more when incentives to hide income are reduced.

The tax cuts of the 1920s
The share of the tax burden paid by the rich rose dramatically as tax rates were reduced. The share of the tax burden borne by the rich (those making $50,000 and up in those days) climbed from 44.2 percent in 1921 to 78.4 percent in 1928.

The Kennedy tax cuts
Just as happened in the 1920s, the share of the income tax burden borne by the rich increased following the tax cuts. Tax collections from those making over $50,000 per year climbed by 57 percent between 1963 and 1966, while tax collections from those earning below $50,000 rose 11 percent. As a result, the rich saw their portion of the income tax burden climb from 11.6 percent to 15.1 percent.

The Reagan tax cuts
The share of income taxes paid by the top 10 percent of earners jumped significantly, climbing from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. The top 1 percent saw their share of the income tax bill climb even more dramatically, from 17.6 percent in 1981 to 27.5 percent in 1988.

Harmful Spending & Complexity
Lower tax rates are important, but they are not the only critical issue. Both the level of government spending and where that money goes are very important. And even when looking only at tax policy, tax rates are just one piece of the puzzle. If certain types of income are subject to multiple layers of tax, as occurs in the current system, that problem cannot be solved by low rates. Similarly, a tax system with needless levels of complexity will impose heavy costs on the productive sector of the economy.

Barry Obama hypocrisy on foreign policy

2008-10-23T11:56:00.000-07:00

Notice that when the RNC spends $150 thousand bucks to refurbish Sarah Palin's wardrobe, the corrupt liberal mainstream media jumps all over the story, yet refuses to mention that Obama thugs are attacking McCain supporters, or that his cronies in states nationwide are trying their damndest to quell anti-Obama dissent?

Liberal hypocrisy knows no bounds. They bitched and moaned that their civil liberties were being stolen when President Bush pushed to pass the Patriot Act and also institute warrantless wiretapping, to TRULY protect us. Yet, Democrats attempt to sift through your garbage (in the name of "recycling"), to enact the Fairness Doctrine, or ban anti-gay/Islamic terrorist speech, truly stealing our first amendments.

The dumb fuckers on the Left, including the MSM, are nowhere to be found. Instead they're all sipping their lattes, driving their Volvos, and castigating Christians.

Just another day in a soon-to-be Obama nation.

Speaking of liberal hypocrisy, try this one on for size. Undoubtedly, you've heard smug liberals proclaim that invading Iraq (in 2003) was illegal and that we had no business here. In one of the recent presidential debates, Democratic candidate Obama stated the following:

"When genocide is happening, when ethnic cleansing is happening somewhere around the world and we stand idly by, that diminishes us."

But he had stated in 2007, "Democratic presidential hopeful Barack Obama said Thursday the United States cannot use its military to solve humanitarian problems and that preventing a potential genocide in Iraq isn't a good enough reason to keep U.S. forces there."

Furthermore, it was okay in the late 1990's for President Clinton to interject American military forces in Serbia to halt a genocide occurring against Bosnian Muslims?

How the hell is Iraq or Darfur ANY different? All three have or would be done to prevent or halt genocide.

The answer is that it's not different; it's just the matter of liberals, so consumed with their of Bush, Christianity and Conservatism, to concoct stories, courtesy of the aforementioned corrupt liberal MSM.

Message to Republicans; Refute Democratic Lies

2008-10-23T06:12:00.000-07:00

If I were a Republican office, I think it would be time to educate the masses.

Of course you can wish in one hand and shit in the other, but that's another story.

Seriously, the Democrats, in elections at every level across the country, are propagating absolute untruths about their Republican counterparts.

Big Oil
Wall Street
Iraq War

In the ad below, Minnesota Democratic Senate nominee, Al Franken, attacks incumbent Republican Norm Coleman on his ties to "Big Oil" and the money he's received from oil lobbyists. The "politics," for lack of a better word, of lobbying are complex, but let it be known that ALL candidates except campaign contributions from lobbyist. For example, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) has accepted HUNDREDS of thousands of dollars from lobbyists representing "Big Wind and Big Solar" (i.e. alternative energy lobbyists) while Democrats like Barney Frank, Chris Dodd, and Democratic presidential candidate Barry Soetoro/Dunham/Obama accepted HUNDREDS of thousands of dollars from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

Regarding Big Oil, allow me to educate the masses once more on the lies behind "oil profits," as perpetuated by Democrats. Note the following from columnist John Hawkins:

Unsurprisingly, given the outrageously high cost of gas and the Left's penchant for pointing the fickle finger of blame at big corporations, we've heard a lot about how big oil is gouging consumers.
However, when you take a look at the actual numbers in California, for example, you find that the "Distribution Costs, Marketing Costs and Profits" for the oil companies make up only 8 cents per gallon of gas.
That doesn't sound like gouging, does it? But if you believe it does, what would you say about the 70 cents per gallon in taxes that's paid by California consumers? Additionally, as Karl Rove has pointed out,

(Oil companies) make about 8.3 cents in gross profit per dollar of sales....Electronics make 14.5 cents per dollar and computer equipment makers take in 13.7 cents per dollar, according to the Census Bureau. Microsoft's margin is 27.5 cents per dollar of sales.

Sure, these oil companies are huge and therefore, even an 8.3% profit adds up to billions of dollars, but when you look at the relatively small percentage that they're putting in their pockets as compared to the humongous share that the government is raking in, it's pretty clear that it's the government, not the oil companies, that is gouging consumers.

The video below epitomizes the untruths spread by Democrats.

Man admits plotting RNC bombing

2008-10-22T11:44:00.000-07:00

According to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, a "23-year-old Michigan man has admitted to plotting to set off a homemade bomb in the tunnels near the Xcel Energy Center, hoping it would cause a power failure and prompt cancellation of the Republican National Convention."

Matthew B. DePalma of Flint, pleaded guilty in federal court in Minneapolis Tuesday to illegally possessing Molotov cocktails.

According to the plea agreement:

DePalma spent about 90 minutes at the Hennepin County Library on Aug. 18 researching recipes for homemade bombs. He bought the supplies for Molotov cocktails a few days later.

He said that if he could bomb the Xcel Center on Sept. 1, "they might call off the convention."

He added that a "power outage would say a lot" and that it was his "main purpose." DePalma also said that he would like to bomb the Xcel Energy Center on Sept. 4 so that the convention would "end with a bang."

On Aug. 22, DePalma allegedly made two jugs of a homemade napalm-like substance for use in the Molotov cocktails. He was seen traveling to a remote location in Rosemount to allegedly assemble and test the Molotov cocktails.

Depalma faces a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. Sentencing has yet to be scheduled.

Of course the bonehead liberals castigated the St. Paul for "heavy-handed tactics," but guess what: it saved lives and prevented damage and disruptions.

So where are the idiot Leftist activists that claimed the St. Paul police department had overstepped their bounds while committing illegal searches?

They're no where to be found.

You see, the Left, like their Islamic brethren, think they can usurp our rights by screaming the loudest, bullying, and intimidation.

Furthermore, they love to fabricate untruths, especially against Christians, hard-working folks, and men/women in uniform.

A pertinent issue, if the Left decides to get REALLY tough is this, which political party do most of the gun owners in this country constitute?

Latest charge of "racism" against McCain-Palin

2008-10-22T11:03:00.000-07:00

Courtesy of Kansas City Star editorial page buffoon Lewis Duiguid, now calling a socialist a socialist, as Republican presidential candidate John McCain and vice-presidential candidate Sarah Palin have done lately, is racist.

You've got to be kidding me.

Of course the object of those remarks is one Barry Soetoro/Dunham/Obama, Democratic presidential candidate, and Mainstream Media golden child.

The "socialist" label that Sen. John McCain and his GOP presidential running mate Sarah Palin are trying to attach to Sen. Barack Obama actually has long and very ugly historical roots.

J. Edgar Hoover, director of the FBI from 1924 to 1972, used the term liberally to describe African Americans who spent their lives fighting for equality.

Those freedom fighters included the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr., who led the Civil Rights Movement; W.E.B. Du Bois, who in 1909 helped found the NAACP which is still the nation's oldest and largest civil rights organization; Paul Robeson, a famous singer, actor and political activist who in the 1930s became involved in national and international movements for better labor relations, peace and racial justice; and A. Philip Randolph, who founded and was the longtime head of the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters and a leading advocate for civil rights for African Americans.

McCain and Palin have simply reached back in history to use an old code word for black. It set whites apart from those deemed unAmerican and those who could not be trusted during the communism scare.

Shame on McCain and Palin.

Pardon my language, but what a crock of shit. Any attack by the Right is deemed racist by liberals and propagated through the corrupt, liberal mainstream media.

Here's a newsflash for you, Lewis: Obama IS a socialist. Not only has he been affiliated with the New Deal Party, a reknowned socialist organization, but on multiple occasions he has employed the phrases "redistribution of wealth" and "spread the wealth around." Sorry, Lewis, but that is code for SOCIALISM.

It's getting sad that any dissent in this country has been stifled by the Left, notably Obama and his Thought-Police. Oh but wait, it was Bush that stole your civil rights, isn't that correct?

Idiots.

Liberal Hypocrisy of the Day: Attacks against Christians

2008-10-22T05:17:00.000-07:00

Isn't it ironic that liberals are offended if you accuse certain minorities for causing most of the mischief in town (backed by statistics of course) or impugn homeless people for urinating in places where most people would not, or label you a racist for not wanting to want for a certain Democratic presidential candidate.

Remember, stereotypes are usually based on facts.

Said liberals are quick to cast aspersions on anyone that disagrees not with them. They love to flaunt their sophistication and enlightenment. After all, this certain Democratic president is often referred to as the "Enlightened One."

That sophistication is thrown out the window when it comes to Christianity; the gloves come off.

Note the following, courtesy of the Minneapolis Star Tribune's Katherine Kersten:

I get it -- Al Franken is a serious senatorial candidate despite his penchant for the pornographic. Franken's one-liners about rape and oral sex and his leering fantasies about big-busted women were just for yucks, right?

Last June, DFL bigwigs chose to forget about their man's decades-long record of sexual crudity after he hooked the endorsement by putting on a serious face and saying "sorry" at the party's convention.

But Franken didn't apologize for another aspect of his trash-talking shtick. He's aimed some of his most offensive material at religious believers, particularly Christians.

Why hasn't this been aired in public? We in the press are too busy searching through Sarah Palin's junior high yearbooks and tracking down the filing dates of Joe the Plumber's tax returns.

Meanwhile, Franken gets a pass for making a joke of the life and death of Jesus Christ.

Franken finds Christ's crucifixion to be a barrel of laughs. For example, in his 1999 book, "Why Not Me?" he wrote about his discovery -- as a fictional former president -- of "the complete skeleton of Jesus Christ still nailed to the cross" during an archeological dig. At the Franken Presidential Library gift shop, visitors can buy "small pieces of Jesus' skeleton."

"We would like to display Jesus' skeleton at some future point," Franken went on. "It's merely a matter of designing and building an exhibition space ... . Until then he's very comfortable in a box down in our basement near the geothermal power station."

Very funny. Anybody want to try a joke like that about Mohammed?

Reread the last sentence. Of course no one will make a joke about Mohammed or Islam in general for two reasons: 1.) liberals have aligned themselves with Muslims, despite their overwhelmingly negative views towards women, homosexuals, and non-Muslims; 2.) they fear violent retribution from Muslims if insulted.

You don't see too many Christians issuing fatwas, do you?

The enlightened liberals have no problem stereotyping and mocking Christians for their beliefs. Personally as a Christian, I'm not too offended by what Franken said; with that said, his humor is lame. He's just not a funny guy. He thinks he is, but he's not.

For a group that recoils in horror at any little verbal indiscretion, their hypocrisy knows no bounds when it comes to Christianity.

But hypocrisy from liberals shouldn't really surprise you, should it?

Liberal Lies: What the liberals WON'T tell you about Obama's "tax cuts" and rich taxpayers

2008-10-21T08:48:00.000-07:00

In this edition, I analyze the notion that Democratic presidential candidate Barry Obama's tax program is anything more than a free ride with no incentives for poor people. I came across an article, courtesy of the Wall Street Journal, that analyzes and essentially debunks Obama's proposed tax cuts. A term I had read in a recent article is "mathemagic." From what I've gleaned from reading and listening to various sources, is that Obama would essentially give money to people that do NOT pay taxpayers.

Note the following:

- A $500 tax credit ($1,000 a couple) to "make work pay" that phases out at income of $75,000 for individuals and $150,000 per couple.

- A $4,000 tax credit for college tuition.

- A 10% mortgage interest tax credit (on top of the existing mortgage interest deduction and other housing subsidies).

- A "savings" tax credit of 50% up to $1,000.

- An expansion of the earned-income tax credit that would allow single workers to receive as much as $555 a year, up from $175 now, and give these workers up to $1,110 if they are paying child support.

- A child care credit of 50% up to $6,000 of expenses a year.

- A "clean car" tax credit of up to $7,000 on the purchase of certain vehicles.

Here's the political catch. All but the clean car credit would be "refundable," which is Washington-speak for the fact that you can receive these checks even if you have no income-tax liability. In other words, they are an income transfer -- a federal check -- from taxpayers to nontaxpayers. Once upon a time we called this "welfare," or in George McGovern's 1972 campaign a "Demogrant." Mr. Obama's genius is to call it a tax cut.

That's called "welfare," folks. Let the transformation into a welfare state begin. Of course this is now surprise. We've heard Obama state in the past, most notably with Joe the Plumber, that sharing the wealth is good for everybody.

It is?

How is an bottomless cup of handouts for lazy, unmotivated poor people good for everybody? It doesn't make said poor people any richer, instead it makes everyone else poorer. Remember that Winston Churchill once said, "The vice of capitalism is that there is an unequal share of the blessings; the virtue of socialism is that there is an equal share of the misery."

Obama has also stated that 95% of the population will receive a tax break. Technically, that's impossible since a significant chunk of this country do not pay taxes. How he can reward those that do not pay taxes is through this concept of wealth redistribution. The "tax breaks" for those that do not pay taxes will come in the form of various refunds.

Regarding the notion that "rich" people do NOT share the overall tax burden, Dick Morris states the following:

In fact, the rich are paying vastly more in taxes than they ever have. "Reality Check," by Dennis Keegan and David West, points out that the percentage of income-tax revenues paid by the top percent of the population has almost doubled in the last 20 years; it now pays 40 percent of all income tax. (The bottom half in income pays less than 3 percent.) Despite the lower rates, the rich are paying more in taxes because they are earning more and more. In the last eight years, real, after-inflation income growth for the top 10 percent of the population has been more than 45 percent.

It's easy political fodder for the Left to blame President Bush and the upper class for the mortgage crisis and the supposed disastrous policies from the former. But what happens when you start taxing the upper class, and all forms of business owners?

These disastrous economic policies lie not in the Bush tax cuts, but instead with the increases in spending and the subsequent expansion of the federal deficit. It's almost an economic given that if taxes are lowered, revenues increase. Note the following:

Let's step back from the politics and ask one simple question: Does the idea of supply-side economics make fundamental good sense or not?

I say that it does. It's so simple: Tax rates that are too high can be self-defeating, and so lowering them can increase total revenues. Bartlett told me that this idea can be traced all the way back to Jonathan Swift, who wrote in 1728 that "in the business of heavy impositions, two and two never make more than one." He noted that economists and philosophers from Smith, Montesquieu, Say, and Mill, to von Mises and Keynes, wrote about the basic principle.
In the modern era, of course, no economist is more closely associated with supply-side economics than Arthur Laffer. He embodied the idea as the famous Laffer Curve, which illustrates that government will earn no revenues at all if tax rates are either zero or 100%. Somewhere in between is a tax rate at which government revenue is maximized. So when rates are too high — too near 100% — revenues can be increased by cutting taxes.

According to the TaxProf blog, hundreds of economists have signed an letter opposing Obama's tax to plan:

We are equally concerned with his proposals to increase tax rates on labor income and investment. His dividend and capital gains tax increases would reduce investment and cut into the savings of millions of Americans. His proposals to increase income and payroll tax rates would discourage the formation and expansion of small businesses and reduce employment and take-home pay, as would his mandates on firms to provide expensive health insurance.

After hearing such economic criticism of his proposals, Barack Obama has apparently suggested to some people that he might postpone his tax increases, perhaps to 2010. But it is a mistake to think that postponing such tax increases would prevent their harmful effect on the economy today. The prospect of such tax rate increases in 2010 is already a drag on the economy. Businesses considering whether to hire workers today and expand their operations have time horizons longer than a year or two, so the prospect of higher taxes starting in 2009 or 2010 reduces hiring and investment in 2008.

Again, what Obama and his minions in the Democratic Party have done, enabled by their partners in crime in the corrupt media is simply lie to the public, whether it's about the economy, global warming, or big oil.

Obama-bots: Drinking the Kool-Aid

2008-10-21T05:22:00.000-07:00

The parallels are eerie...the way Democratic presidential candidate Barry Soetoro/Dunham/Obama has captivated millions of people, not only in this country, but globally as well.

Is this man running for president or leading a cult?

It matters NOT what this man says or does, his followers and the corrupt, liberal mainstream media continue to figuratively fellate the man. Furthermore, at every turn, he and his minions, for that is truly what they are, have attempted to stifle free speech and dissent.

He has also made his intentions clear, the conversion of a country based on Judeo-Christian principles to a godless socialist nation where minorities and those practicing alternative lifestyles are bestowed status of "special," abortions occur at will, our taxes skyrocket, global warming is standard orthodoxy in public schools, etc.

The possibilities, if this man is elected and Democrats continue to grab seats in the Congress, are truly frightening.

What's further frightening is that the sheeple of this country are letting it happen. This man can do and say want he wants without fear of retribution. Couple the threat of the most liberal president in history with a nearly filibuster proof Congress, and the possibilities are frightening; a liberal supermajority, if you will.

Note the following, from the Wall Street Journal:

- Medicare for all. When HillaryCare cratered in 1994, the Democrats concluded they had overreached, so they carved up the old agenda into smaller incremental steps, such as Schip for children. A strongly Democratic Congress is now likely to lay the final flagstones on the path to government-run health insurance from cradle to grave.

Mr. Obama wants to build a public insurance program, modeled after Medicare and open to everyone of any income. According to the Lewin Group, the gold standard of health policy analysis, the Obama plan would shift between 32 million and 52 million from private coverage to the huge new entitlement. Like Medicare or the Canadian system, this would never be repealed.

The commitments would start slow, so as not to cause immediate alarm. But as U.S. health-care spending flowed into the default government options, taxes would have to rise or services would be rationed, or both. Single payer is the inevitable next step, as Mr. Obama has already said is his ultimate ideal.

- The business climate. "We have some harsh decisions to make," Speaker Nancy Pelosi warned recently, speaking about retribution for the financial panic. Look for a replay of the Pecora hearings of the 1930s, with Henry Waxman, John Conyers and Ed Markey sponsoring ritual hangings to further their agenda to control more of the private economy. The financial industry will get an overhaul in any case, but telecom, biotech and drug makers, among many others, can expect to be investigated and face new, more onerous rules. See the "Issues and Legislation" tab on Mr. Waxman's Web site for a not-so-brief target list.

The danger is that Democrats could cause the economic downturn to last longer than it otherwise will by enacting regulatory overkill like Sarbanes-Oxley. Something more punitive is likely as well, for instance a windfall profits tax on oil, and maybe other industries.

- Union supremacy. One program certain to be given right of way is "card check." Unions have been in decline for decades, now claiming only 7.4% of the private-sector work force, so Big Labor wants to trash the secret-ballot elections that have been in place since the 1930s. The "Employee Free Choice Act" would convert workplaces into union shops merely by gathering signatures from a majority of employees, which means organizers could strongarm those who opposed such a petition.

The bill also imposes a compulsory arbitration regime that results in an automatic two-year union "contract" after 130 days of failed negotiation. The point is to force businesses to recognize a union whether the workers support it or not. This would be the biggest pro-union shift in the balance of labor-management power since the Wagner Act of 1935.

- Taxes. Taxes will rise substantially, the only question being how high. Mr. Obama would raise the top income, dividend and capital-gains rates for "the rich," substantially increasing the cost of new investment in the U.S. More radically, he wants to lift or eliminate the cap on income subject to payroll taxes that fund Medicare and Social Security. This would convert what was meant to be a pension insurance program into an overt income redistribution program. It would also impose a probably unrepealable increase in marginal tax rates, and a permanent shift upward in the federal tax share of GDP.

- The green revolution. A tax-and-regulation scheme in the name of climate change is a top left-wing priority. Cap and trade would hand Congress trillions of dollars in new spending from the auction of carbon credits, which it would use to pick winners and losers in the energy business and across the economy. Huge chunks of GDP and millions of jobs would be at the mercy of Congress and a vast new global-warming bureaucracy. Without the GOP votes to help stage a filibuster, Senators from carbon-intensive states would have less ability to temper coastal liberals who answer to the green elites.

- Free speech and voting rights. A liberal supermajority would move quickly to impose procedural advantages that could cement Democratic rule for years to come. One early effort would be national, election-day voter registration. This is a long-time goal of Acorn and others on the "community organizer" left and would make it far easier to stack the voter rolls. The District of Columbia would also get votes in Congress -- Democratic, naturally.

Felons may also get the right to vote nationwide, while the Fairness Doctrine is likely to be reimposed either by Congress or the Obama FCC. A major goal of the supermajority left would be to shut down talk radio and other voices of political opposition.

- Special-interest potpourri. Look for the watering down of No Child Left Behind testing standards, as a favor to the National Education Association. The tort bar's ship would also come in, including limits on arbitration to settle disputes and watering down the 1995 law limiting strike suits. New causes of legal action would be sprinkled throughout most legislation. The anti-antiterror lobby would be rewarded with the end of Guantanamo and military commissions, which probably means trying terrorists in civilian courts. Google and MoveOn.org would get "net neutrality" rules, subjecting the Internet to intrusive regulation for the first time.

Those of us on the right are watching the new United Socialist States of America unfold before our very eyes; ironically, the Left bitched and moaned when the Bush Administration used warrantless wiretapping on international phone calls between suspected terrorists to ultimately keep this country safe, YET, the Obama Thugocracy, has attempted to stifle dissent at HIS urging.

I stated in a column last week that the Left's hypocrisy knows no bounds, and their lack of culpability is turning this country into a welfare-state. It's this hypocrisy is evident in the Left's collective mocking of those of us who believe in the TRUE One, Jesus Christ. Instead, the Left has embraced their own messiah, Barry Obama.

No, Barry, you were NOT born in Bethlehem.

Liberals and their utter lack of responsibility

2008-10-17T12:29:00.000-07:00

That's really what it comes down to with liberals and their Democratic enablers, doesn't it?

Whether it's the $700 billion bailout, terrorism, abortion, taxes on the rich, health care, entitlements, their collective mentality is either the "underprivileged" are owed or are entitled to something because they've been held down, or it's okay to partake in irresponsible behavior sans fear of taking personal responsibility.

The $700 billion bailout was passed jointly by a Republican White House and Democratic Congress. But the essence behind the bill was Democratic implications that homeowners who had purchased houses and had been foreclosed upon, or were facing foreclosures, were actually "tricked" into buying houses by predatory lenders. Puh-lease. If you click the link to Michelle Malkin's column, you'll notice that the number of left-wing mortgage counseling services is staggering.

No, the problem is that 1.) instead of working and saving for a house that fit within our price range, people from all walks of life wanted a big house; in other words, something they couldn't afford. 2.) when the shit went down, because they greedily purchased said excessive home, they figured that Joe and Joanne taxpayer would foot the bill for them. So the socialists in Congress, Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, et al, along with some Republican idiots, passed a bill "bailing out" the idiots who didn't belong in those house, at the expense of honest, hard working Americans.

But if you talk to a liberal, they tell you that something had to be done. The ones who couldn't afford the expensive homes (see $200 thousand on a $30 thousand budget) were tricked, they were lied to.

Bullshit, I say. Moreover, because many of these homeowners were minorities, the specter of racism looms over any accusation from those of us on the Right. If we impugn these people, it's because we've all taken off our KKK hoods long enough to point fingers.

By extension, this bailout issue seques into the notion of entitlements, welfare, and taxes. Because liberals play the victim card to perfectly, it's easy to blame those of us who work hard and pay our taxes. Somehow, according to liberals, we've kept poor Americans, once again, often minorities, from grabbing their slice of the pie. By taxing us that have worked hard, paid their bills, gone to college, etc (and notably because we're "white"), Democrats, led by presidential candidate Barack Obama, want to "spread the wealth around." Why? Because it's good for everyone?

Huh? How is it good to reward laziness and lack of motivation? Rather than make poor people richer, it instead makes ALL of us poorer. Rather than allow those of us to enjoy our HARD-EARNED prosperity, we're all supposed to suffer together.

When it comes to the War on Terror, and our subsequent "world standing," it's actually George W. Bush's fault that Radical Muslims loathe us to the extent we do. Nevermind that terrorist attacks were being committed in the name of Allah LONG BEFORE Bush became president (see: Beirut, early 1980's, USS Cole, 1998 Embassy bombings, Khobar Towers, FIRST World Trade Center bombing), or that President Bill Clinton responded ineffectually to terror attacks perpetrated against, NOR really took any action to apprehend Al Qaeda leader Osama bin Laden.

Regarding abortion, nothing epitomizes lack of responsibilty than statements from Obama, whereby he would never want to burden mothers with the "punishment" of an unwanted child. Rather than hold accountable those who engage in unsafe fornication, he wants to allow abortions occur, completely unfettered. Nevermind that we've butchered 30+ million babies in this country.

That is the ultimate in lack of responsibility.

Minnesota Update: Examining key issues (Energy, global warming, open borders) in the Walz-Davis race

2008-10-10T10:25:00.000-07:00

On occasion, I like to dissect political issues germane to Minnesotans like me. In this case, I'm deconstructing the 1st Congressional District battle between Democratic Congressman Tim Walz and Republican challenger Brian Davis.

The Austin Post-Bulletin has provided essentially a scorecard on where each candidate stands on pertinent issues.

Here are some of the issues:

Energy philosophies

Even though the moratorium has been lifted on off-shore drilling, both candidates battled over its merits.

Davis said he strongly supported a "drill here, drill now" philosophy, reciting a mantra that has become identified with his campaign. He noted that a decade ago the price of oil was $10 a barrel but rose to as high as $147 per barrel this past summer. He said Walz has done nothing to bring down gas prices, voting 12 times against off-shore drilling during his two years in Congress.

But Walz said such a proposal would have done nothing to alleviate gas prices.

"I'll tell you what, I did vote 12 times against that, because I'm not going to give Big Oil a free ride again," Walz said.

He said the key was not simply to focus on oil drilling, but to begin a process for transitioning to the next generation of renewable fuels, such as biofuels, and wind and solar power. He said bipartisan legislation he supported would have accomplished that, taking the royalties from off-shore leases and funding an "alternative and sustainable future" based on renewal energy.

In the process, it would have created jobs, powered the economy and enhanced the country's security, he said.

"That's a real solution. That's not a slogan," Walz said.

Note the statements from Walz on Big Oil, and the long-term plan for oil. First, had Bill Clinton not vetoed a bill in the mid-1990's sponsored by a Republican Congress to open ANWR and the Outer Continental Shelf to drilling, we wouldn't be in this mess now. The oil WOULD be available. Second, the reference to "Big Oil" is merely a lame attempt by a liberal to tap into pubic resentment. Big Oil is no greater an evil than "Big Wind" or "Big Solar." In fact, Big Oil HARDLY makes money hand-over-fist. I've read numerous reports that for every $1.00 invested by "Big Oil," they recoup $.08 of profit. EIGHT LOUSY CENTS... but because you hear about their BILLIONS of dollars in profit, Democrats propagate a lie. Those billions are being shared by millions of people, not just a few oil tycoons.

What should we do about the 12 million illegal immigrants in the United States?

Davis: "If you want to have a debate about legal immigration and a guest worker program, that is a legitimate debate. But illegal immigration has to stop by almost any means necessary, 'cause we're losing our country. Unlike Congressman Walz, I do support building a border fence."

Walz: "Let's have an open and honest discussion among our workers and businesses about what we need for labor in this country. Let's have them go through a legal system that gives them a biometric card. We'll have the workers necessary, and our resources will go to stopping at the border those things that we want to stop."

You see, you can't have it both ways, Tim. You can't purport to defend the rights of working class Americans by supporting an open border policy. Illegal immigrants thus extorting said policy are taking jobs from Americans. Furthermore, these people BROKE the law. Democrats have no problems enforcing crying foul when someone insults their "Dear Leader," Democratic presidential candidate Barry Obama, or howling when someone proffers their opinions on the evils of Islam.

Is global warming man-made, and should efforts be made to control it?
Davis: "I contest (the idea) that the majority of global warming can be proven (to be caused) by fossil fuel combustion. Some of it, yes. All of it, no. I would also contest strongly that by burning fewer fossil fuels, we're going to control the climate."
Walz: "The vast majority of Americans who do see (the threat of global warming) see the concern to move toward (energy) alternatives, not only for economic reasons, not only for security reasons, but for the (purpose) of handing our planet to children in a livable, sustainable manner."

No Tim, the vast majority of us do NOT see the threat of global warming. If they have, it's because the corrupt mainstream media, in conjunction with leftist diplomats worldwide, have invented this notion, contrary to evidence that we're on the cusp on a significant cooling period instead. Did you know, for example, that global temperates are cooler by .07 degree C since 1998? I bet you didn't...the MSM won't allow it. Also, did you know there were periods, prior to the existence of humans, that carbon dioxide levels were three to four times greater than they were now? Probably not too much cars then, I would imagine.

Moreover, scientists by the truckload have denounced global warming, or at least implored governments to deliberate more on potential legislation.

Not your grandpa's Democratic party anymore

2008-10-09T10:11:00.000-07:00

If my grandpa was alive, I have reservations that he would be a Democrat. Grandpa Twin Cities Conservative (Todd Anthony) was born and raised in Ely, Minnesota.

You see, after my grandpa returned from serving three years in the Pacific during WWII, he went to work in one of the mines on the Iron Range. If you've been to Ely or any of the surrounding communities, you probably know to which I refer. It's a region in Northern Minnesota comprised of bands of iron ore.

Traditionally, that area of Minnesota has been a Democratic-Farmer-Labor Party stronghold; it's voted almost exclusively Democrat in past elections.

More than likely, ol' Gramps would be disgusted at what the Democratic party has morphed into. Rather than represent the voice of the people, particularly that of the WORKING CLASS, it has evolved into a clique that represents the wishes of the latte liberal sect.

Nothing represents the latte liberal mentality more than what Democratic presidential candidate Barry Soetoro/Dunham/Obama said to a group of San Francisco liberals: "It's not surprising that they get bitter, they cling to . . . religion . . . as a way to explain their frustrations."

The only similarities between the Democratic Party of today and that of yesteryear would be its Socialist elements. Instead, the Democratic Party listens to the voice of the diplomats, the academics, and the fringe groups. Furthermore, these groups are often represented by the left-wing elitist:

"Like the 'new class', liberal elites are often understood to be university/college educated professionals, often considered to wield immense cultural power in the media, academy, and school system. They use this cultural power to influence politics beyond their numerical significance, advocating fringe interests to the detriment of 'mainstream' opinion. Their political arguments are allegedly self-serving and frivolous, aimed at restricting public choice."

These latte liberals share no ideals with Democrats like Grandpa. To be perfectly candid, my grandpa was bigotted. He disliked minorities (or anyone different from him for that matter), he disliked laziness, he LOVED America, he saved money, he worked hard, and he was VERY religious.

Tell me how ANY of the above mentioned characteristics mirror that of the latte liberal?

They don't.

For example, how does a trendy cause, such as global warming, which is supported by the tofu class, benefit WORKING CLASS Democrats (or working class AMERICANS) for that matter? It doesn't. Instead, because global warming apologists place such an emphasis on alternative energy and opposition to this country's natural resources, it does not allow us to cultivate our domestic energy supply, whether it's oil, coal, nuclear power, etc. In the case of oil, coupled with the almost daily increase in demand from countries like China and India, we cannot place our OWN oil in the world supply, bringing demand down, and thus lowering the cost of gasoline. Add to this the environmentalists' refusal to allow the construction of new refineries in this country.

What does this mean? Well, in addition to the aforementioned increased cost of gasoline, it also drives the prices of our monthly energy bills, whether it's at home or work. People need to come up with funds to pay for higher gasoline and higher utilies, so they cut back in other areas, such as travelling, going out to eat, going to movies, buying clothes, buying food, etc.

Speaking of food, the Left's insistence that end result of oil increases "global warming" has led to a worldwide movement to embrace ethanol. What ethanol does ultimately, as well as increased sugar cane production for automobile consumption, is drive up the price of food.

"(T)he rise in prices is also the self-inflicted result of America's reckless ethanol subsidies. This year biofuels will take a third of America's (record) maize harvest. That affects food markets directly: fill up an SUV's fuel tank with ethanol and you have used enough maize to feed a person for a year."

How does that benefit Working Class Americans?

It doesn't.

Something to consider also is that the latte liberal school relies on white guilt and support for "freedom fighters" (such as Hamas and the PLO). Futhermore, this mentality is prevalent in its opposition to our nation's military. It starts at the top; note the following comment from Obama:

"We’ve got to get the job done there and that requires us to have enough troops so that we’re not just air-raiding villages and killing civilians, which is causing enormous problems there."

How does that support the military?

It doesn't. Instead, it fuels hatred in Muslim countries, for example, that our troops are only there to rob and rape them. Furthermore, Islamic fundamentalists have used civilians as human shields, often hiding in houses and mosques. IF they want to fight dirty, our military should fight dirty as well.

I thought we learned our lesson after former Democratic president Bill Clinton failed to truly combat Islamic terrorism.

Ultimately, Obama's presidential bid has served as an opiate for many people in this country. Unfortunately, it's also proved that people often can't truly think objectively. His message of wealth redistribution, hope, and change has an intoxicating essence to it.

What we'll soon learn is that working class American will be the ones to suffer under his portending presidency.

Barney Frank: Playing the Race Card

2008-10-07T06:08:00.000-07:00

Here we go (rolling eyes).

Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), employing TYPICAL Liberal politics, stated "that Republican criticism of Democrats over the nation's housing crisis is a veiled attack on the poor that's racially motivated."

Typical, when presented with facts, this is what the Democrats do. They play the race card. Barry Obama isn't qualified? That's a RACIST attack!! The Democrats forced Affirmative Action down our throats through essentially coercion of financial institutions to lend to people with shady histories, no or low incomes, etc? That's a RACIST attack!!!

No, Barney; that's not a RACIST attack, that is a FACT instead. We taxpayers are suffering because you and your liberal minions, since the inception of the Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, have, under the threat of litigation, forced financial institutions to completely disregard all common sense and lending acumen, in order to put minorities into houses.

To compound the problem, you and your aforementioned liberal minions profited handsomely from Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac campaign contributions.

Furthermore, Republicans such as George W. Bush and John McCain have issued warnings for year that, due to poor accounting practices, the above mortgage institutions faced financial peril. The Morning Bell states the following:

"(C)onservatives have been critical of how Fannie, and Freddie Mac, have leveraged their government-sponsored advantages (including exemptions from state and federal taxes, lower capital requirements, and the ability to borrow at rates well below those paid by private companies), to create a co-monopoly in the housing finance sector. When Fannie’s accounting scandal came to light in 2004, conservatives pushed hard for reforms to phase out Fannie and Freddie."

USA Today also adds that Conservatives should be furious that the Democrats, who essentially caused this mess, are getting off untarnished, no thanks to the corrupt liberal Mainstream Media:

"My bottom line: The McCain campaign is underestimating how absolutely furious conservatives are that free markets, and by extension Reaganomics and the last 25 years of American economic policy, are getting the blame for the housing and credit crisis. A real morale killer, they tell me. Over and over. Every day."

John McCain needs to remind the American public of that fact during tonight's debate.

Obama: Truth equals Smears

2008-10-06T05:28:00.000-07:00

We've heard this refrain from Democratic presidential candidate Barry Soetoro/Dunham/Obama on more than one occasion. According to the Minneapolis Star Tribune, Obama stated that Republican nominee John McCain is "gambling that he can distract you with smears rather than talk to you about substance. They'd rather try to tear our campaign down than lift this country up. It's what you do when you're out of touch, out of ideas, and running out of time."

When the Republicans uncover potentially damaging information pertaning to the "Chosen One," the Obama camp instantly cries "smear" or "racist." We've heard it previously from Obama and his minions. Any effort to expose Obama for the socialist radical that he is, is met with either threats of litigation or baseless accusations.

Nor does it help when the overwhelmingly libeal Mainstream Media propagates the notion that attacks on Obama are racially-tinged. Yet, they're trying their DAMNEDEST to ensure that the American public doesn't learn who the real Obama is before the election. Carol Platt Liebau states the following (in a "what John McCain SHOULD be saying about Obama" treatise):

Barack Obama has multiple ties to those responsible for the present economic crisis?:

Franklin Raines, the immediate past CEO of Fannie Mae – who has collected a $90 million golden parachute while driving Fannie into the ground – has advised Obama on housing issues.
Jim Johnson, yet another former Fannie Mae CEO, resigned from Obama’s vice presidential search team when it was revealed he had received a sweetheart home mortgage deal.
Despite serving in the Senate for only four years, Obama himself has been the second-largest recipient of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac largesse in the entire Congress, ahead even of former presidential candidate John Kerry, who’s spent two decades in the Senate?
Obama’s long-time political ally, radical group ACORN, played a key role in pressuring banks to offer loans to those who were unlikely to be able to pay them back. ACORN has taken credit for pressuring banks to accept undocumented income as a basis for offering loans, for offering loans without using credit scores, and for making 100% financed loans available to low-income people.

There is more, of course. Do voters know:
That, in apparent defiance of federal election law, the Obama campaign refuses to identify individual donors who have provided almost half the funds for his campaign, including obvious fakes like “Mr. Good Will” and “Mr. Doodad Pro”? And that 11,500 donations to his campaign – totaling almost $34 million – may have come from overseas? Or that two Palestinians living in a Hamas-controlled refugee camp spent $31,300 in Obama’s online store? Who are all these people, and why won’t the Obama campaign obey the law and identify them?

Repeatedly, we’ve heard the media denounce the “rumors” about Barack Obama that are, supposedly, circulated on the internet exclusively by the bigoted and the ignorant.

Yet, as Liebau states above, the mainstream media, in an effort to defend ITS candidate, has proffered the notion that any accusations are based on race and hatred. Notice what they did when fellow Democrats raised legitimate points about Obama's lack of experience, voting record, political affiliations, etc.

He did it with both Bill and Hillary Clinton, as well as Geraldine Ferraro. It's an easy game to play if you're a minority. Furthermore, Obama has on occasion, warned voters that Republicans are so narrow-minded that they "will try to make voters afraid of him, and suggested they would use his race to scare up votes for John McCain.

Yep, it's all about race in this country. Rather than speak freely of someone's LACK of qualifications, we're forced to play nice in order to NOT offend someone. Obama KNOWS this; he knows that if someone brings forth a legitimate claim against him, because he's black, he can employ the race card.

BDS to PDS: Why?

2008-10-03T05:49:00.000-07:00

I've recently heard a verbal barrage from two of my female liberal co-workers on why Sarah Palin is a horrible human being.

Is it PMS that's fueling their PDS?

For the past eight years, we Conservatives have endured a constant litany of attacks, most of which are unfounded, against President George W. Bush. Comically, this almost knee-jerk vitriol from the Left became known as BDS, or Bush Derangement Syndrome.

Now we on the Right are hearing and reading the same type of inane attacks being levied against another Republican.

But WHY do they hate her, and others like her?

1. She's a Christian
2. She's noted as being a moose hunter
3. She's a former mayor of a small town
4. She's pro-life and staunch anti-abortionist

The litany of reasons exists; the primary cause of such venom essentially stems from her differences to "powerful" feminist women in this country. Couple that with her faith in the Christian faith and her stance on abortion, and it's easy to see why liberals are so incensed.

Ultimately though, their verbal toxin is a result of Palin's refusing to adhere to a liberal orthodoxy. These Liberal Moonbats believe that Palin is hellbent on destroying equal rights and sexual freedom; they also are undoubtedly positive that the Alaskan governnor is waging war against sexual education, non-Christians, and minorities.

As Michelle Malkin states, these are "(T)he morbid ghouls who would rather you abort your unborn children than bring them into the world and increase the planet’s carbon footprint."

Left-wing definition of “proper pre-natal care:” A bloody trip to Planned Parenthood.
Now the lies: she's tried to ban books, she's worked tireless to enforce abstinence-only sexual education in Alaskan schools while "slashing" teen pregnancy funding, she labored to have her ex-brother-in-law, an Alaskan law enforcement official, to be relieved of his duties.

Does it surprise you that the Left are a gaggle of lying wind bags?

Unfortunately, the state of this country is such that Christianity is either on par with Radical Islam, or in fact, worse. After all, we've bombed abortion clinics!!! (note: sarcasm)

This person has endured lie after lie, not to mention Leftist idiots hacking into her personal email account, posting of fake photos of a bikini-clad Palin as well as those of her children, she engaged in an affair, she's banned books, etc.

With that said, encouraging news exists.

First, websites refuting Palin lies are popping up. Second, a Rasmussen poll recently concluded that by a 10-1 margin, the American public believe the Mainstream Media is intentionally trying to distort our perception of Palin.

"51% of voters think reporters are trying to hurt Sarah Palin with their news coverage, 24% say those stories make them more likely to vote for John McCain in November, just 5% think reporters are trying to help her with their coverage."

As conservatives AND as Christians, we're naturally used to this type of abuse, and that's really what it is. We're become targets in the crosshairs of the liberals everywhere, whether it's our refusal to blindly accept global warming, our support for our troops, our "bigotry" against alternative lifestyles, or our blind devotion to Jesus Christ. That is why we're under attack.

The Leftist idiots equate Christianity with misogyny, racism, and homophobia.

Liberal Star-Tribune states that no verbal gaffes occurred in last night's VP debate; I beg to differ

2008-10-03T05:14:00.000-07:00

According to the liberal Minneapolis Star Tribune, last night's debate between vice presidential candidates Sarah Palin and Joe Biden was polite, pointed, and contained no verbal gaffes.

Really?

According to Townhall's Amanda Carpenter, who cites Republican candidate John's McCain's bloggist, Biden lied FOURTEEN times.

Note the following:

On the foreign policy front, Biden challenged Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin when she said Barack Obama’s pledge to meet with any foreign leaders, including Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, without precondition “goes beyond naivete and goes beyond poor judgment.”
Biden lectured Palin, “That's just simply not true about Barack Obama. He did not say he'd sit down with Ahmadinejad.” During the YouTube Democratic primary debate last July Obama was asked if he would meet the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba, and North Korea without “precondition” during his first year in office.
“I would,” he replied.
Biden appeared to attack Obama for making that very statement in August 2007. While Biden was challenging Obama for the Democratic nomination for president Biden said he would not support such a pledge. “Would I make a blanket commitment to meet unconditionally with the leaders of each of those countries within the first year I was elected president?” he said in an appearance at the National Press Club. “Absolutely positively no."
Five of the lies Biden told were related to tax and energy votes. During the debate Biden adamantly claimed McCain voted the same way as Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama did on a vote to raise taxes on those making $42,000 a year. The legislative record shows McCain was not present in the Senate for either of those votes and is recorded as “not voting.”
The RNC also takes issue with Biden’s assessment Palin supports a “windfall profits tax” and Biden’s claim McCain voted against alternative energy 23 times. The independent Factcheck.org has previously stated when Obama and other Democrats made similar charges about the 23 votes “they’re overstating the case.”
The other lies detailed by Goldfarb were related to Biden’s characterization of McCain’s healthcare plan, stances on bank deregulation and the $700 billion financial bailout that recently passed the Senate.

Yet, we're not going to hear that from the Mainstream Media, are we?

Why would we? From a corrupt group that has refused to report on any of Obama's shortcomings, whether its his associations with Jeremiah Wright or Bill Ayers, or his gangland-like tactics in Missouri, Virginia and Chicago to usurp our First Amendment rights, or his daily verbal gaffes on the economy, terrorism, and foreign reports, we're saturated with endless glowing reports of their "Chosen One" at every turn.

Liberal Lies: Bush created terrorism

2008-09-30T08:04:00.000-07:00

In this edition of "Liberal Lies" I examine the Leftist notion that President George W. Bush CREATED terrorism in his tenure.

Often, sensible Americans hear liberals repeat the same tired Daily Kos-like talking points: Bush is a war criminal, the Iraq War is illegal, Bush created terrorism etc. While NONE of the three are true, I shall refute the idea that Bush created Islamic terrorism.

One of the hallmark of Democratic presidential candidate Barry Soetoro/Dunham/Obama's "change rhetoric" is his pledge, if elected president, to restore America's standing around the global.

Did anyone else just throw up in his or her mouth? What a joke.

First of all, does anyone give a rat's ass what the pretentious socialists in Europe think? Second, world "opinion" is convuleted and warped by messages from sham institutions like the United Nations that it matters NOT what we do; world opinion will not change.

Obama's "pledge" is typical of the "Blame America" crowd. Regardless of the futility and lack of action committed by DEMOCRATIC presidents, it all comes back to the Left's collective, conflagrative hatred of all things George Bush. Furthermore, Obama's message is shameful pandering at its best, and its worst; guess who suffers in the end?

That's right, you and me.

Does anyone remember an eight period during the 1990's called the Clinton Administration? If so, do you remember what transpired during that time period?

If not, let me refresh your memory:

1. 2000 USS Cole bombing
2. Khobar Towers
3. US Embassies bombed in Kenya and Tanzania
4. 1993 World Trade Center attack

National Review's Byron York states, "When it comes to Bill Clinton’s record on terrorism, there’s no need to invent fictional scenarios to show how ineffective he was; the truth is bad enough. "

York's report is fascinating in that he notes that terrorists were essentially given carte blanche to attack us at will. Due to misguided efforts to label terrorism as a law enforcement issue (note that Obama is now doing the same thing), Clinton essentially created a barrier between the FBI and the CIA, the same barrier that allowed the 9/11 attacks to occur.

"From the start, Clinton approached the investigation as a law-enforcement issue. In doing so, he effectively cut out some of the government’s most important intelligence agencies. For example, the evidence gathered by FBI agents and prosecutors came under the protection of laws mandating grand-jury secrecy — which meant that the law-enforcement side of the investigation could not tell the intelligence side of the investigation what was going on. 'Nobody outside the prosecutorial team and maybe the FBI had access,' says James Woolsey, who was CIA director at the time. 'It was all under grand-jury secrecy.'"

According to the Department of Justice, Clinton was offered Al Qaeda mastermind Osama bin Laden on THREE separate occasions, but turned them down.

"The main reasons were legal: there was no evidence that could be brought against Bin Laden in an American court. But former senior intelligence sources accuse the administration of a lack of commitment to the fight against terrorism."

And look what happened: the Bush Administration was left holding the bag on September 11th, 2001, when an Al Qaeda attacked destroyed the World Trade Center, parts of the Pentagon, and brought down a jetliner in Pennsylvania.

Note the following "legacy" of Clinton's regarding the very real war on terror:

1993- A humanitarian operation in Somalia is transformed into a military strike, where Clinton refuses to authorize the availability of armor for proper support. When the ill-supported operation leads to American casualties, Clinton overrides military requests and refuses to allow a properly outfitted military counter-strike. Within a few months, he withdraws American forces, sending the message that a "bloody nose" is the only thing necessary for the United States to back down.
1995-1996 - Clinton institutes "Citizenship USA" which pressures the US Department of Justice's Immigration and Naturalization Service to naturalize some 1,000,000 new immigrants, even though many had incomplete background checks. This allowed for criminals and terrorists to enter America. Whistleblowers to these activities and the large scale selling of Green Cards, were physically threatened and terminated.
August 20, 1998 - The Clinton Administration demonstrates a perfunctory response toward terrorism after the assault on two U.S. embassies in Africa. On Aug. 7, 1998. The U.S. embassies in Nairobi, Kenya, and Dar es Salaam, Tanzania, were bombed by terrorists, leaving 258 people dead and more than 5,000 injured. Some 1,000 were permanently blinded by flying glass.

The U.S. Launches cruise missiles, striking an empty terrorism training complex in Afghanistan and destroying a pharmaceutical manufacturing facility in Khartoum, Sudan. Both targets were claimed to have been financed by Osama bin Laden, but many feel that the ill-planned strike was simply done to deflect legal problems President Clinton was having with Monica Lewinsky.
The Afghanistan training facility attack fails to get Bin Laden because the Clinton Administration gives Pakistani Intelligence prior notice of their intentions. Pakistani Intelligence had long been known to have elements sympathetic to Al Quaida. They proceeded to give Bin Laden warning and he escaped. There was no follow-up and Bin Laden was again buoyed by our meek approach to the growing terrorist menace.
1999 - The Clinton Administration decides to show the Islamic world that America is more than willing to kill European Christians to court their favor. He provokes war on the Serbs, our only historic friend in the European Balkans. Clinton gives the Serbs the choice of either accepting The Ramboouillet Accords... or being destroyed from the air. He supports the Islamist, Al Qaeda allied Kosovo Liberation Army (responsible for running the drug and prostitution trade in Europe). He authorizes the bombing of Serb civilian targets such as bridges, hospitals and heating plants, which leads to the death of over 5,000 Serb civilians. This action sets the stage for creating a radical Islamic base in the "belly" of Europe.
October 12, 2000 - Terrorism strikes and almost sinks the Destroyer USS Cole in Yemen. President Bill Clinton does nothing. Reinforces the perception that the United States lacks the will to either defend itself or battle terrorism in spite of considerable loss of life. There was no follow-up.

Two relevant points exist: Clinton did NOTHING to squelch this threat during his administration, and Al Qaeda had begun planning for this operation years prior, DURING THE CLINTON ADMINISTRATION.

Compare the aforementioned terror attacks during the Clinton Administration to that under the Bush Administration. That's right; none have occurred. In fact, we're fighting terrorists in other parts of the globe rather than here on American soil. In fact, if the Iraq War did anything, it allowed terrorists to come out of hiding and expose them.

The problem with Clinton was that, like so many naive liberals, the issue of terrorism could be resolved through dialogue. Furthermore, terrorist were emboldened due to the lack of effective retaliatory measures employed on our part. They knew that if they attacked us, we might talk a good game, but we eventually mete out half-assed justice.

Say what you will about President Bush; we have not incurred a terrorist attack under his watch. Despite the Left's objections to the Patriot Act, waterboarding, or other such hot button issues, they've worked.

Democrats and their special interests: A relevant argument

2008-09-29T08:18:00.000-07:00

Here in liberal Minnesota, we're bombarded with an endless string of Norm Coleman and Stuart Smalley, er, Al Franken attacks ads, especially the ones whereby Smalley, er, Franken castigates Coleman for accepting money for "big oil."

Yawn. Big deal.

Here's one thing you have to love about Democrats. They know how to push our buttons. Because of the global warming lie and the subsequent mistruth that 1.) the resultant gasoline is polluting our skies and causing global warming; 2.) big oil is engaging in price gouging and raking in "record profits."

What they hope is that mass public will simply their insane notions at face-value, without engaging in any exculpatory investigation. If the public would peruse the sites of anything BUT the Mainstream Media (including ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, New York Times, Washington Post), they might realize that a good deal of contrarian information exists.

For example, according to John Hawkins, did you know that for every $1 spent by "Big Oil," they recoup $.08?

Unsurprisingly, given the outrageously high cost of gas and the Left's penchant for pointing the fickle finger of blame at big corporations, we've heard a lot about how big oil is gouging consumers.
However, when you take a look at the actual numbers in California, for example, you find that the "Distribution Costs, Marketing Costs and Profits" for the oil companies make up only 8 cents per gallon of gas.
That doesn't sound like gouging, does it? But if you believe it does, what would you say about the 70 cents per gallon in taxes that's paid by California consumers? Additionally, as Karl Rove has pointed out,

(Oil companies) make about 8.3 cents in gross profit per dollar of sales....Electronics make 14.5 cents per dollar and computer equipment makers take in 13.7 cents per dollar, according to the Census Bureau. Microsoft's margin is 27.5 cents per dollar of sales.

Sure, these oil companies are huge and therefore, even an 8.3% profit adds up to billions of dollars, but when you look at the relatively small percentage that they're putting in their pockets as compared to the humongous share that the government is raking in, it's pretty clear that it's the government, not the oil companies, that is gouging consumers.

Of course Democrats don't want you to know that. Instead they'd rather throw a number in your face, for example $1 billion in profits; well, 1.) "Big Oil" is arguably the biggest industry in the world; 2.) those "billions in profits" are going towards Average Joe's 401k or pension, it's not merely going to Texas Tycoon.

Now we're hearing that Republican-enabled greed fueled the potential economic calamity, greed perpetuated by Wall Street during the Bush Adminstration.

Here we go again.

Much has been written about the Carter and Clinton Administrations' efforts to put minorities into homes (see: Community Reinvestment Act of 1977). What it did essentially was force mortgage lenders to overlook shady credit histories and low incomes in order to make minorities homeowners. In fact, it was "community activists" such as Barry Obama, in efforts to "assuage" banks, threatened to label those who financial institutions who adhered to strict lending standards, RACIST.

Furthermore, under the "special interests" banner, note the following from Townhall's Terry Paulson:

What was our champion of change and hope doing about the problem? Nothing! Records from the Federal Election Commission reveal a possible reason for Obama’s silence. In his three complete years in the Senate, he’s the second largest recipient of Freddie-and--Fannie-connected campaign contributions. It took Sen. Christopher Dodd, chairman of the Senate banking committee, eleven years to receive $165,400 in contributions from GSE PACs and individuals. Obama received $126,349 in just three years.

And now these same hypocritical sons of bitches are pinning the cost of this damn $700 billion bailout on homeowners who bought homes the RIGHT way: through hard work, saving money, sensibility, and good faith.

McCain/Palin Win in a Landslide on Economic Recovery Plan

2008-09-28T09:33:00.000-07:00

You might see this possible future headline if the bailout tanks. Think Obama will gain votes if the bailout fails? Think again.

Normally, people vote their wallet, and will change parties if the economy has gone sour before the election. The sitting President is blamed for the economy and the candidate from the other party is elected. Based on this history, the Republicans will not gain the Whitehouse this year unless the economy turns around, like right now.

Maybe the opposite will happen this year and the Democrats will be blamed. For instance, in 2006 Congressional control was given to the Democrats by the voters. No economic problems were fixed and we're in economic hot water right now anyway. So the Democrats fixed nothing and what is to say that a Democratic President will be able to make any difference either?

Will the economic problems will become so severe by election day, that they will supersede party lines? In other words, Americans won't be asking which party can fix the problems, but rather which person or candidate pair can fix the problem. Yes, Bush is disliked, and obviously something went wrong during his 8 years, but the critical question on voter minds might be 'Who can fix this mess before it gets any worse?' Assigning blame does not fix the problem. Assigning blame will not bring back jobs or stop bank failures or bring the stock market back.

The economic woes have been caused by excess greed and Americans are already growing angry with the impact on their lives by the Wall Street shenanigans of the past few years. If this anger continues to be stoked by continuing bad economic news, voters will want Wall Streeters brought to justice, but, more importantly, they will want to see the financial system reformed so these hooligans cannot wreak havoc again. Those fixes must be brought by someone with strength of character and a fresh approach. McCain is widely admired as an uncompromising individual from his years as a prisoner of war. Palin is widely admired for being a reformer and a down-to-earth person. We have character and freshness in this pair. Obama and Biden do not bring these qualities.

If this thesis is true, the Republicans will win by a landslide and be given carte blanche by the voting public to initiate any changes immediately that will turn the economy around. Drilling everywhere will be opened, Wall Street will be given no more bailouts, the Fed rates will be increased to battle inflation (actually the Fed should be closed down and monetary control given back to Congress but I doubt that will happen), and so on.

Public sentiment in favor of the new government may in fact be at such high levels that such support of our government may not have been seen since the days of our founding fathers. The return of a founding father/mother in the form of the McCain/Palin ticket: Maybe we would actually have a chance to turn this economic crisis into something constructive.

Keep taking your medicine: Cod liver oil is good for you.

CodLiverOilGuy

MSNBC: Deal reportedly reached on U.N. Iran resolution

2008-09-26T13:25:00.000-07:00

Big fat whoop.

Yawn.

According to Leftist Propaganda Tool MSNBC, "Six world powers, including the United States and Russia, have reached a deal to seek a new U.N. resolution on Iran's nuclear program, European officials said Friday.

Does anyone REALLY think that Iran will fulfill the terms of said "deal?"

Of course the Left does. Furthermore, look at how faithful North Korea was regarding its "deal." The international community, in six-party talks, purportedly struck a deal with the rogue Kim Il Jung regime whereby his country would disband his nuclear weapons program.

"North Korea had agreed in February 2007 to begin dismantling its nuclear program in exchange for aid and other concessions.
Scientists began disabling its reactor in November, and in June blew up the Yongbyon cooling tower in a dramatic show of its commitment to the pact. Eight of the 11 steps needed to disable the reactor were completed by July, North Korean officials said."

Now they've "reversed course."

"North Korea barred U.N. nuclear inspectors from its main nuclear plant on Wednesday, and within a week, it plans to reactivate the plant that once provided the plutonium for the explosive test two years ago, a senior U.N. nuclear inspector said. The North ordered the removal of the U.N. seals and surveillance equipment from the Yongbyon reactor, a sign it is making good on threats to restart its nuclear program."

And now the international community believes rogue nation #2, that being Iran, will fulfill the terms of its deal?

Not bloody likely.

Here's the "teeth" of the deal: "The proposed new resolution is a compromise — no new sanctions but a tough statement to Iran that Security Council resolutions are legally binding and must be carried out."

I'm sure Iran is shaking in their boots. That will show 'em!!!

I had a conversation with quasi-radical liberal co-worker discussing the flashpoint topic of Iraq; I had queried said co-worker, pondering why it was okay for the Clinton Administration to insist to the world that Saddam Hussein possessed weapons of mass destruction while engaging in a low-intensity war with Iraq for eight years, but yet when George W. Bush ENFORCED the 14 resolutions that Saddam violated, he became a pariah.

Smugly, the aforementioned liberal stated that Clinton's "actions" were acceptable because he used the United Nations as a vehicle to halt Saddam's weapons program. Of course, as I replied, this is the same United Nations that engaged in the Oil-for-Food scandal, allowed Security Countil member countries (Russia, France, and Germany) to engage in clandestine business opportunities with Saddam, and hosts such purveyors of human rights, Saudia Arabia, Libya, etc. on its United Nations Human Rights council.

That's a bundle of credibility, if I do so say myself.

And now we really think the new "League of Nations" will actually enforce an Iranian weapons resolution?

Haven't we been down this road before?

The Economy and the Subprime Mess: "Root of our calamity"

2008-09-26T08:43:00.000-07:00

Syndicated columnist Charles Krauthammer stated it appropriately when discussing just how the subprime housing mess contributed the current financial CRISIS.

"For decades, starting with Jimmy Carter's Community Reinvestment Act of 1977, there has been bipartisan agreement to use government power to expand homeownership to people who had been shut out for economic reasons or, sometimes, because of racial and ethnic discrimination. What could be a more worthy cause? But it led to tremendous pressure on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac -- who in turn pressured banks and other lenders -- to extend mortgages to people who were borrowing over their heads. That's called subprime lending. It lies at the root of our current calamity."

Naturally, the Left is blaming the greed of Wall Street. Of course, they played a part; therein lies the problem with Capitalism. But the roots of the housing mess were took hold decades ago, under Democratic leadership and emboldened by Leftist community groups. I made the point yesterday, the Democrats and the Left played as much of a role, IF NOT MORE, than anyone else.

Of course the Democrats are blaming this ENTIRE problem on Wall Street and predatory lenders. What an insane notion. Check out Michelle Malkin's article on the Left Wing Mortgage Counseling Racket. A plethora of mortgage counseling exists and DID exist when the subprime bullshit was going down.

Conservatives in the Senate (the few of them that are left) seem to have just rolled over and accepted at face value the liberal premise that the subprime mess was primarily created by a lack of education–as opposed to high-risk borrowers and lenders consciously making bad decisions and expecting now to be insulated from the consequences of their actions. From the way Harry Reid and company talk about the $100 million mortgage counseling provision, you would think helpless, hapless, vulnerable borrowers are being left adrift with no one to turn to for information.

Furthermore, Malkin adds the following:

As I’ve pointed out several times over the past year, mortgage counseling is a thriving racket that benefits far Left groups ranging from the AARP to ACORN to La Raza and Legal Aid. The Department of Housing and Urban Development funds hundreds, if not thousands, of these groups across the country. In October, HUD announced more than $44 million in new housing counseling grants to over 400 state and local efforts. The White House has increased funding for housing counseling by 150 percent since taking office in 2001.

And now we're on the verge of passing an extremely unpopular $700 billion bailout measure; thanks to unholy alliance with these same Democrats who created this mess and a misguided President George Bush. What does this do? Essentially it serves a dual purpose: 1.) it absolves a g-damn greedy Wall Street that acted in a reckless behavior, but 2.) it also erases culpability on the homeowner's end; they bought houses they couldn't afford with shady credit histories. Furthermore, it exonerates the Democrats who set in motion the events that created this travesty.

It's shameful. The Democrats are destroying this country. In addition to this subprime mess, which is somehow pawned off onto Republicans, their devotion to this ungodly Global Warming will bankrupt this country if allowed to continue unfettered. Couple that with their adherence to a dogma that kills babies, protects death row inmates, figurately and literally spits in the face of our military, while ramming progressive values down our throat and stifling free speech, thought, and religion, and we have a recipe for disaster.

And now, we the taxpayers, are paying for everyone else's indiscretions. Query a homeowner, a REAL homeowner; someone who saved for a down payment, pays their mortgage every month faithfully, and who did NOT buy a house that superceded their budget.

These people are demoralized. They did things the right way. Read Michelle Malkin's latest article; it sums up the situation perfectly.

Florida Democrat Hastings: Gun totin' Palin hates Jews and Blacks

2008-09-25T11:21:00.000-07:00

I thought I had heard everything, then I was tipped off about statements made by one Alcee Hastings, Florida Democratic Congressman.

"'If Sarah Palin isn’t enough of a reason for you to get over whatever your problem is with Barack Obama, then you damn well had better pay attention,' said Hastings. 'Anybody toting guns and stripping moose don’t care too much about what they do with Jews and blacks. So, you just think this through.'"

Huh?

In a country where we on the Right are constantly accused of waging smear tactics (it's ALMOST laughable), we're constantly subjected to vitriol (see: bullshit) spewed from the Left. Hastings also added:

"Asked what the congressman meant, Hastings spokesman David Goldenberg told ABC News that he was trying to argue that Palin is an 'extremely conservative woman who is out of touch with mainstream America.'

After saying that Palin 'don't care too much' about Jews and blacks, Hastings argued that African Americans and Jews should come together behind Obama because there are many issues on which they agree.

'Just like Jews, blacks care about affordable health care, energy independence, and the separation of church and state,' said Hastings. 'And just like blacks, Jews care about equal pay for equal work, investment in alternative energy, and a woman's right to choose.'"

Palin, out of touch with "mainstream America?" Really? A country that purports a majority of its population to be right or center-right. Conversely, we're talking about a group of people, LIBERALS, who are so consumed with a bogus ideology (global warming) and believe that this great United Stated has committed so many ills against Muslims that we DESERVE to be attacked.

And yet, we on the right are out of touch with reality.

The truth is: mainstream America wants closed borders, wants to cultivate its natural resources, including oil, nuclear power, oil shale, and coal, and wants to live in a country where, while we are tolerant, are not constantly subjected to progressive values shoved down our throat. Mainstream America goes to church, believes in hard work, and justice for innocent babies versus death row inmates.

Talk about getting it backwards.

Liberal Lies: The Housing Crisis

2008-09-25T05:23:00.000-07:00

In this installment of "Liberal Lies," the Twin Cities Conservative examines the notion that the housing crisis was resultant of Wall Street, poor decisions from the Republicans, and was set in motion during the Bush Administration.

EHHHHH (buzzer sound)...wrong answer.

Now we're hearing, from self-righteous SOB's like Senator Chris Dodd (D-CO), that the housing crisis was preventable and occurred under President George Bush's watch.

EHHHHH (buzzer sound)...wrong answer

Syndicated Cal Thomas, in his article in today's online Townhall.com, states, "It was pressure from the Carter and Clinton administrations that forced Fannie and Freddie to grant more high-risk loans to people who otherwise would never qualify."

Furthermore, Thomas adds:

"Democrats would love to blame the Bush administration for a disaster they mostly helped to create. But, according to the White House, as early as April 2001, the administration warned that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac was 'a potential problem," because 'financial trouble of a large (government-sponsored enterprise) could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting federally insured entities and economic activity.' As recently as June of this year, President Bush asked Congress to take the necessary measures to address growing foreclosures. 'We need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,' he said. In July, Congress passed reform legislation, but it was too late."

Further compounding the problem is Democratic presidential candidate Barry Soetoro/Dunham/Obama and his colleagues in the United States' role in helping create the subprime mess. It was Obama's role as a lawyer within the "left-of-center" Public Research Interest Group, which ultimately forced banks to provide loans to minorities under the threat of racism.

Ultimately, it was Obama and a Democratic Congress that created laws and regulations, which planted the seeds of the subprime housing industry. Columnist Jerry Bowyer states:

"Obama spent his pre-elected career working right in the middle of the complex of law firms and activist groups which use law and regulations to push banks into vastly increasing their lending to Subprime borrowers right in the middle of the golden age of the expansion of the Subprime industry. "

Finally, there was the role of community organizations and civil rights law firms that, according to columnist Bowyer, threatened to cry "racism" if banks did not lend to minorities:

"(T)here simply was no such thing as a developed Subprime mortgage industry until the US congress created it by ordering banks to issue loans to people who were not credit worthy. Community activist groups (such as the Public Interest Research Group and Acorn) and civil rights law firms (such as Miner, Barnhill & Galland) had make their living by accusing banks of racism when the banks hesitated to approve loan requests from minority citizens with poor credit scores.

These "champions of minority rights" worked diligently to pass the Community Reinvestment Act, a law which forces banks to provide home loans to minority neighborhoods, regardless of their credit history, risk factor, neighborhood location, crime, etc. Bowyer states the following:

"The Community Reinvestment Act was created as a result. Initially the act was used, not to get banks to lend to minority households, but to get them to cut checks to ‘community groups’. Left of center activist agencies, which had pushed for the act in the first place, used it as a shakedown tool. So long as the banks kept paying off to the activists, the activists would hold off on sending complaints to the bank regulators’ CRA files.
Eventually, under Clinton, the CRA was renewed and, not surprisingly, made more punitive. Banks were required to make Subprime mortgage loans now too, or else suffer a low CRA rating and be punished accordingly. The Fed played it’s part. The Home Mortgage Disclosure rules created an unfunded mandate for banks to track and publicly disclose the race and gender of it’s mortgage clients. Now the shakedown artists had an easy source of complaints and a club with which to beat the banks into submission. The bankers complied and the Subprime mortgagage market was born."

And now guess who gets to suffer? The taxpayers, as a mis-guided Bush Administration, and a completely "off-it's-rocker" Democratically-controlled Congress are looking to pass a $700 billion bailout bill that rewards Wall Street, banks, and CEO's for bad behavior, while eliminating culpability from Leftist community groups and elected officials, which essentially lobbied for regulations that created the subprime mess.

Barry Obama: Robbin' the Hood

2008-09-22T11:55:00.000-07:00

I don't know about you, but the Twin Cities Conservative is getting a proverbial "kick" out of Democratic presidential candidate Barry Soetoro/Dunham/Obama's economic plan.

What is it? Well, undoubtedly you've heard the phrases "redistribution of wealth" and "economic justice" being bandied about. This basically entails stealing from the rich and giving to the poor, or as Obama's vice presidential minion, Joe Biden stated on ABC's Good Morning, "We want to take money and put it in the pockets of the middle class people…"

Okay, that should merely affirm what we know about the Obama camp: that they have designs on planting the seeds of Socialism in this country. Note the following from this article, courtesy of Investors Business Daily:

"'Economic justice' simply means punishing the successful and redistributing their wealth by government fiat. It's a euphemism for socialism."

Furthermore, according to Townhall.com's Austin Hill:

"Now, Obama and Biden have constructed a campaign that promises to simply take things away from people who have achieved them, and give things to people who have not achieved them. This is “change” that America cannot afford - - neither in terms of monetary, or human capital."This is the type of "change" Obama has in mind: he doesn't want to make average Joe American's life any better, but instead he wants to give those who haven't worked hard "treasure" that other Americans have earned.

How is that fair?

It's not; for the record, there are deserving people in this country; people who can use a helping hand. But don't you think most honest, sensible Americans would rather have a job than merely an entitlement? If Obama wants to mete out "economic justice," why not, IF he's elected President, require those sucking on the goverment teat, to work?

He won't, because he knows that as long as people are receiving FREE MONEY from the government, a basic tenet of the Democratic Party, that constitutes what is essentially a guaranteed vote.

The problem is that these entitlements are like crack cocaine to those who ABUSE them. They are hooked.

Robin Hood, Barry Obama is not.

Liberal Lies: Barry Obama's work as a community activist

2008-09-19T06:33:00.000-07:00

I came across an email forward, while slamming Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin as a hick and trophy wife, touted Democratic presidential candidate Barry Soetoro/Dunham/Obama's record as a community activist.

Yuck, I think I just threw up in my mouth. Here's an excerpt from the email, highlighting Obama's "work:"

If your wife is a Harvard graduate lawyer who gave up a position in a prestigious law firm to work for the betterment of her inner city community, then gave that up to raise a family, your family's values don't represent America's.
If you spend 3 years as a brilliant community organizer, become the first black President of the Harvard Law Review, create a voter registration drive that registers 150,000 new voters, spend 12 years as a Constitutional Law professor, spend 8 years as a State Senator representing a district with over 750,000 people, become chairman of the state Senate's Health and Human Services committee, spend 4 years in the United States Senate representing a state of 13 million people while sponsoring 131 bills and serving on the Foreign Affairs, Environment and Public Works and Veteran's Affairs committees, you don't have any real leadership experience.

Typical Leftist dreck...wouldn't you say? Need we mention the many shortcomings of Barry Soetoro/Dunham/Obama? Whether it's his "work" as a community activist and the pressure he placed on mortgage lenders to give money to at-risk potential home-buyers, or his ties to ACORN. Furthermore, how long did Obama work as a "community organizer?" A day? Two? (veiled sarcasm).

Noted author Michelle Malkin states, "Let me clarify something. Nobody is mocking community organizers in church basements and community centers across the country working to improve their neighbors’ lives. What deserves ridicule is the notion that Barack Obama’s brief stint as a South Side rabble-rouser for tax-subsidized, partisan non-profits qualifies as executive experience you can believe in."

Furthermore, she goes on to say, "What deserves derision is “community organizing” that relies of a community of homeless people and ex-cons to organize for the purpose of registering dead people and shaking down corporations and using the race card as a bludgeon."

What about Obama's extensive ties to ACORN? According to SperoNews:

Obama has had extensive experience as a community organizer. In the 80s, he was the lead organizer of the Developing Communities Project, a campaign funded by Chicago’s south-side Catholic churches and formed on the organizing principles of Saul Alinsky. He spent another four years building an organization in Roseland and the nearby Altgeld Gardens public housing complex.

ACORN is another community-organizing network with Alinskyian roots. Before going off to law school in the early 90s, Obama directed ACORN’s partner organization, Project Vote. Meeting with ACORN leaders in November, he reminded them of this, saying, “I've been fighting alongside ACORN on issues you care about my entire career. Even before I was an elected official, when I ran Project Vote voter registration drive in Illinois, ACORN was smack dab in the middle of it, and we appreciate your work.”
ACORN, an acronym for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now, considers itself the nation’s largest community organization. Its Political Action Committee, ACORN Votes, announced its endorsement of Senator Obama’s run for the US presidency in February 2008.

Is that something to be proud of? Check this out, courtesy of Malkin:

ACORN Watch: 1,100 suspicious voter cards in NM

By Michelle Malkin • September 17, 2008 06:19 PM

The friends of Barack Obama.

ACORN Watch: The community organizing fraud continues

By Michelle Malkin • September 15, 2008 11:21 AM

Stealing elections.

ACORN Watch, Pt II: Obama hid $800,000 payment to ACORN through “Citizen Services, Inc.”

By Michelle Malkin • August 22, 2008 11:46 AM

Follow the money. Connect the dots.

ACORN Watch, Pt I of the day: More voter fraudsters in Milwaukee

By Michelle Malkin • August 22, 2008 10:49 AM

Fraud-a-palooza.

ACORN Watch: Voter fraud and mortgage scams on your dime

By Michelle Malkin • August 7, 2008 12:41 PM

Obama’s old friends.

ACORN Watch: New whistleblower affidavits

By Michelle Malkin • July 31, 2008 04:20 PM

Your tax dollars at work.

And what about his role in the subprime mortgage mess? Author Jerry Bowyer reports that "(Obama)" went to work for the New York branch of the Public Interest Research Group. PIRG is one of those left of center activist groups who, among other things, uses the legitimate concept of 'fair housing' to force banks into making bad loans. PIRG has actively lobbied for a stronger (yes, you guessed it) Community Reinvestment Act."

What's the Community Reinvestment Act? Bowyer responds that it is "a law which compels banks to make home loans in minority neighborhoods to people who were poor credit risks."

Yes, brilliant work as a "Community Organizer."

How much of this do you know? Answer: you don't. The corrupt liberal Mainstream Media has done its damnedest to cover up Obama's indiscretions, whether it's his, ahem, "work" as a community activist, or his ties to dirtbags like Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko, or Bill Ayers.

They don't want you to know this. Instead, in thinly disguised attempts to reshape and distort the news, they want you to believe that this "community organizer" who while purporting to be a Washington Outsider and self-proclaimed change agent, is the "Chosen One" sent by the Almighty Himself to save this country (or "change" this country if keeping to the "Obamasiah" theme).

Liberal lies: Recently passed oil bill

2008-09-17T10:30:00.000-07:00

Michelle Malkin calls the new oil drilling bill a hoax; personally, I call it a "faux oil" bill, because it does NOTHING. Furthermore, it places an increased tax burden on the American populace, all for the sake of the goddamn environment.

Back in the day, pre-1968, the Democrats actually stood for working class American men and women. Those days have long since disappeared. Instead, Democrats, while mocking Republicans for supposedly serving their Special Interests, routinely bow to the money-launderers in the environmentalist, anti-war, and abortion movements.

Here's the details of the bill that should interest Americans who are stuggling to fill up their gas tanks; that most's Americans. Note that this does NOT include the latte liberal sect (see: San Francisco and Chicago Democrats):

The bill prohibits drilling within a 50 mile area of your coasts.

Note to anyone that has brain: that is where most of the known oil is.

Furthermore, the bill will not allow any of the following:

Permanently ban access to about 97 percent of the undersea oil lying within 50 miles of the California coast.
Continue the ban on energy production in the Eastern Gulf of Mexico.
Impose a brand-new ban on oil and gas leases in Alaska’s coastal waters out to 50 miles.
Not allow states that approve new leases beyond 50 miles to share royalties with the federal government, thus stripping any financial incentive for states to stand up to environmental pressure groups, who will continue to agitate against any new oil and gas operations offshore.

Nor does the bill state ANYTHING regarding increased refining capacity. Instead, those moves are blocked by the environmentalist lobby, who coincidentally, are sleeping with the enemy: The Democrats.

Despicable isn't even the right word for what happened today; instead, I find the words "traitorous," "repugnant," "seditious," etc more apt.

Furthermore, this is nothing more than an election year STUNT undertaken by the Democrats to show the American people that they "support" oil drilling.

Bullshit. They do nothing of the sort.

Liberal Lies: Barry Obama and his "change" rhetoric

2008-09-16T10:48:00.000-07:00

Anyone else getting sick of the lies spewed forth from Democratic presidential candidate Barry Soetoro/Dunham/Obama?

He and his Democratic cronies in Congress are planning change, make no mistake...but their idea of change is to continue to radically alter the landscape of this country in the following facets: religion, thought, speech, energy, business, and ultimately...our way of life.

They're planning change; they're planning to unite. But their idea of "change" and "unification" isn't for all Americans. Rather, they're planning to change American so the fringe groups on the Left: the environmentalists, the open border crowd, and the anti-war goons are granted a ideal, romantic, socialist utopia.

Barry Obama: robbin' the hood.

I was exercising and while I was watching TV, I saw a bit of Obama's speech from Coors' capital, Golden, Colorado. Naturally, the rhetoric was merely a recital of the lines his predecessors have used (Jimmy Carter, John Kerry, Michael Dukakis, Marx, Lenin, etc.). To paraphrase, it's time to rob the rich and give to the poor.

Furthermore, what's ironic is that for a party supposedly represents the people, the Democrats have officially become the enemy of the state. Rather that support drilling EVERYWHERE, developing Coal to Liquid technology, oil shale, etc., the g-damn Democrats are pushing their bullshit Global Warming lies to serve dual purposes.

First, thanks to boneheads like Al Gore, the United Nations, and other anti-American economy forces, Americans have been inundated and subsequently indoctrinated with the climate change message. In other words, due to amount of gasoline we're using, we're creating more greenhouse gases, raising the temperature globally, and thus melting icebergs and killing polar bears.

Yawn.

Did you know that the icebergs have returned to their "pre-global warming" levels? Did you also know that many scientists/climatologists/meteorologists believe that we may be in for mini ice-age by 2030? Did you also know that there have been periods BEFORE humankind, where carbon dioxide, reputedly a "greenhouse gas" was at levels three/four times higher than what we're experiencing now? Did you know that carbon dioxide is actually an essential life-force, used by plants for photosynthesis? Unfortunately, once again thanks to the liberals and their lust for ethanol and other biofuels, we're destroying whole forests, again useful for photosynthesize, to plant corn and sugar cane.

Second, the Democrats are essentially looking to lock away our coastal regions (within 50 miles of our coasts) from drilling, thus forcing us to embrace the joke that is alternative energy (pray for wind). When a goddamn liberal touts wind and solar energy, ask them for cost-feasibility studies. Prepare for glassy-eyed stares, because they do NOT exist.

We're on the precipice, people. Watch your civil liberties vanish; prepare yourself for jail time if you wish to speak against homosexuality (see HR 1592, currently making its way through the U.S. Senate). We need a Republican president to VETO that bill. Brace yourself for thought control and increased regulation (see: big brother). Develop thick skin, because you will be accused of short-sightedness, bigotry, xenophobia, homophobia, if you refuse to embrace homosexuality.

Close your eyes and imagine the catcalls of racist if you decry the religion of peace, Islam. Prepare yourself to be indoctrinated that Islamic fundamentalists have every right to kill innocent Jews and Crusaders because "we started it. (see: blame America first crowd)"

Try hearing a message that contradicts that of the Left. It will disappear if they re-enact the Fairness Doctrine. In other words, we'll be essentially forced to listen to Air America, Al Franken-type liberal radio pundits, in addition to the endless, corrupt, leftist vitriol propagated on CBS, ABC, and NBC.

This is "change" as defined by one Barry Obama. He's got EVERYONE hoodwinked.

Just wait and see.

Mainstream Media is "at it again:" Sarah Palin supposedly stumbles in interview

2008-09-12T12:44:00.000-07:00

They'll do anything, won't they?

You know to whom I refer: the Mainstream Media; let me rephrase that: the liberal, corrupt Mainstream Media.

According to the Minneapolis Star and Sickle, er Star-Tribune, "Sarah Palin defends qualifications, struggles with foreign policy questions."

Really? Because I don't see it.

The Star-Tribune adds the following:

"In her first televised interview since being named to the GOP ticket, Sarah Palin says she's ready to be president if called upon. However, she sidestepped questions on whether she had the national security credentials needed to be commander in chief."

Here's what we have, fellow readers: a vain attempt by the LIBERAL, CORRUPT, Mainstream Media to somehow make us forget the endless verbal gaffes committed by their chosen one, Democratic presidential candidate Barry Soetoro/Dunham/Obama and focus on purported verbal missteps committed by Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.

Nice try.

"In the interview broadcast Thursday, Palin sought to defend her qualifications to assume one of the most powerful jobs in the world. But she struggled with foreign policy, unable to describe President Bush's doctrine of pre-emptive strikes against threatening nations and acknowledging she's never met a foreign head of state.
Pressed about what insights into recent Russian actions she gained by living in Alaska, Palin told Charles Gibson of ABC News, 'They're our next door neighbors and you can actually see Russia from land here in Alaska, from an island in Alaska.'"

Can you just sense the glee in which the author penned this story? Can you see liberals looking down their collective noses at this mother of five, who served as mayor of a small town? I sure can.

I would be far more worried about Palin's inexperience if she was running for PRESIDENT, which she is not. Instead, that would fall on Messiah Obama. Remember, he's the one who stated that he would meet unequivocally with any head of state without preconditions; furthermore, he said he would strike INSIDE Pakistan to destroy Al Qaeda, even though the Mainstream Media skewered President Bush this past week for doing so.

The liberals and their benefactors in the media love to distort and filter the news. But make no mistake, it's not Palin who's running for president. Attempting to compare her alleged foreign policy misgivings to that of Golden Boy Obama is futile at best, ridiculous at worst. I'm wondering if the liberals, for all the bravado as to how superior in intellect they are to those of who cling to God and guns, need a lesson in potty training: #1 does NOT equal #2.

Bush OK's Pakistan Raid: the Liberal, Corrupt MSM is at it again

2008-09-11T05:53:00.001-07:00

Courtesy of the obscenely liberal MSNBC, I came across this story. Upon digesting the gravity of the situation, it's pretty fitting that the corrupt, liberal Mainstream Media fired this particular salvo on the anniversary of the 9/11 attacks.

Of course, no doubt should remain as to which side the liberals are on.

"WASHINGTON - President Bush secretly approved orders in July allowing U.S. special forces to carry out ground assaults inside Pakistan without approval from the Pakistan government, the New York Times reported Thursday."

Follow up the lead paragraph with the following statement:

"The disclosure is certain to further anger Pakistan's military, whose Army chief said Wednesday that Pakistan would not allow foreign troops to conduct operations on its soil, after a cross-border incursion last week by U.S. commandos."

It's almost as if the corrupt, liberal, mainstream media has telegraphed its motives, doesn't it? In its combined effort to destroy President George W. Bush, his administration, and his legacy, the aforementioned corrupt, liberal, mainstream media has taken sides, officially, with the "enemies of the state," notably radical Islamic fundamentalism.

We've seen this before, haven't we? Hmmm...let's travel back in time a few years. To ensure that American citizens and interests abroad can sleep safely at night, the Bush administration authorized a clandestine warrantless wiretapping program, whereby government officials could eavesdrop and intercept international phone calls, either originating here in the United States or overseas.

Naturally, the idiots on the Left, through the obscenely liberal New York Times caught wind of this story. They broke it, thus alerting our enemies, many of whom who wish to murder and maim us, to said program.

Now they're at it again. The mainstream media, in a clear act of sedition, have stoked the fires of Muslim hate in Pakistan, once again, perpetuating the notion that American imperialism is at work.

Of course, keep in mind that the liberals' messiah, Democratic presidential candidate Barry Soetoro/Dunham/Obama stated months ago that he would authorize military incursions INSIDE Pakistan.

Finally, lest we forget, the Democrats, in their clamoring about losing their civil liberties, are quick to inspect our garbage (see ultra-liberal San Francisco city government), re-enact the Fairness Doctrine (thank you liberal Congress/Senate), and pass HR 1592 (Bible as Hate speech law). It is the LEFT that wishes to curb your civil liberties. That's called eavesdropping, domestic spying, and curbing freedom of speech and thought.

We ALSO call that "Big Brother."

The Old America

2008-09-05T14:37:00.000-07:00

CodLiverOilGuy, September 5, 2008

I saw George Washington a couple of nights ago, peering over the glass rims and speaking along with the words of one Sarah Palin. I'm not speaking about spiritual possession or any paranormal phenomenon. I'm talking about pride: George Washington looked down from Heaven and was so pleased in the kindred spirit he saw in Sarah that he was irresistibly drawn into her presence.

Sarah's speech was a breath of fresh air and I think George agrees. The spirit in which he and the other men of that age, now known as our forefathers, spoke, felt, and believed passionately enough about to sacrifice everything, had returned to our land.

That spirit of Old America has been missing for many decades. We have been so preoccupied with wealth and all of the activities associated with being a superpower, that we forgot where we came from. We have been so busy correcting past injustices, patrolling the world, arm-twisting or buying influence with every nation, and generally just acting indulgent and spoiled. We have lost the spirit of Valley Forge, forgotten or marginalized the great concepts and sacrifice that led to the creation of our Constitution, Bill of Rights, and the Declaration of Independence. Maybe we felt that we had conquered injustice and those principles were so firmly ingrained in our society that we did not need to emphasize them any longer. I don't know.

I do know that the New America, the progressive America that came into being in the 60's, rotted our country to the core. The New America was characterized by killing unborn children in the name of choice, irresponsibly spending more than we earned, worshipping greed and money, banishing God from our public life, and tolerating personal indulgence in the name of freedom. Sacrifice, honor, integrity, and wisdom were heard and heeded less and less. Wild excess, drugs, sex without constraint, and personal irresponsibility were touted as freedom from the old. Were they not though but a return of an old bondage instead?

If you drew from the well of Old American values, would you not be strong of character and noble in purpose? Would you not know your place in God's plan and how to contribute to your community and your country? Could not a group of people so ennobled accomplish great things, as George Washington and his ilk confirmed? Old American values provided a solid basis for freedom and growth. New American values promote chaos, sin, destruction, and social discontinuity. How could we ever have sacrificed Old America for the New abomination? We listened to a lie. Freedom from responsibility was offered just like the snake offered Eve the apple. We haven't learned and we ate the apple. Is our nation truly greater now that it has been in its history? Have we progressed as a country, firm in purpose and of one mind and hear? Has liberty grown stronger in our breasts, so that we can help but shout it to the world? Do we shout praises to our Creator for the great gift of freedom and liberty, an experiment unmatched in recorded history? Do other nations speak of us in awed tones, in respect?

New America has sickened me. It has discouraged me. Excellence, honor, and righteousness are not honored in the name of equality. All that has brought is universal mediocrity. Our excesses have grown and our ethics have withered. Greed dominates our land and we have spent ourselves into serfdom and perhaps even into utter poverty and starvation. The new freedom has left us mired in the mud, ignorant, proud, and stiff-necked.

Until I heard Sarah Palin, I was in despair that the principles on which our country was founded had completely drowned in the muck that is New America. God, however, has blessed one of His own to bring back the old values, to remind the people of the old ways, to show us the light and wisdom that our forefathers bestowed upon our nation. I felt a refreshing wind blow past me as Sarah Palin spoke the truth that has not been heard for many years: America is a great land, with a great people, and has been honored by Almighty God to carry the torch of liberty. This liberty is a heavy burden, though, rearing sacrifice and constant attention. Sarah Palin has told us that we have neglected Lady Liberty for far too long and that we need to return to the values which once made our land great. Old America must be resurrected, her values once again instilled into the hearts of young and old alike, and her words spoken with respect and honor.

I know that my heart was not the only one bestirred. I know her words resonated within the spirit of the many decent and honest people that dwell in all parts of America. I think that George Washington felt it too and his heart swelled with the pride of the parent of an errant child who finally understood what was good and right. If you felt the spirit of Old America when Sarah Palin spoke, then work to resurrect Old America. Maybe soon we can see George Washington peer from the faces of more of our politicians and leaders and smile at the greatness that will once more rise in our land.

Keep taking your medicine: Cod liver oil is good for you.

CodLiverOilGuy

News Flash! Climate Change Exists! It's just not the climate change the liberals would have you believe

2008-09-03T11:13:00.000-07:00

Yet another article, in a litany of many, directly refuting the notion that the Earth is warming; this article, courtesy of the DailyTech.com, discusses the notion that sun spots directly correlate to warming/cooling trends, not necessarily human factors, as liberals are wont to embrace.

Note the following:

"Drop in solar activity has potential effect for climate on earth.

The sun has reached a milestone not seen for nearly 100 years: an entire month has passed without a single visible sunspot being noted.

The event is significant as many climatologists now believe solar magnetic activity – which determines the number of sunspots -- is an influencing factor for climate on earth."

Hmmm...interesting; hard scientific data from nonpartisan, apolitical sources. Yet, those of us who believe that the Earth's weather is more complicated than what the Left propose are bludgeoned into submission.

Note the following statement, which is indicative of the politics that exist in the scientific community as a whole.

"In 2005, a pair of astronomers from the National Solar Observatory (NSO) in Tucson attempted to publish a paper in the journal Science. The pair looked at minute spectroscopic and magnetic changes in the sun. By extrapolating forward, they reached the startling result that, within 10 years, sunspots would vanish entirely. At the time, the sun was very active. Most of their peers laughed at what they considered an unsubstantiated conclusion.
The journal ultimately rejected the paper as being too controversial.

The paper's lead author, William Livingston, tells DailyTech that, while the refusal may have been justified at the time, recent data fits his theory well. He says he will be 'secretly pleased' if his predictions come to pass."

What does that tell you when the scientific community, rather than express actual findings, confirmed by facts and data, subverts this information because it doesn't concur with their preconceived beliefs that humankind is the primary cause of climate change?

The fact is, people, the Earth is more complicated and less susceptible to supposed human interference than what the Left would have you believe. This global warming dreck is nothing more than a concerted effort to FURTHER undermine our economy by forcing us to reduce our "carbon emissions" by up to 60-80%.

Here's the bottom line, based on the article above: it is in fact THE SUN that is responsible for global warming/cooling.

What a novel concept: the SUN responsible for warmth or lack therof?

Live from St. Paul: Protestors and the activists who love them

2008-09-03T07:31:00.000-07:00

As if we needed further impetus to loathe those on the Left who align themselves with the criminals rather than the victims, along comes this story, courtesy of the Minneapolis Star-Tribune:

"Almost a year to the day before the Republican National Convention began, members of a self-described anarchist group gathered to talk about ways to disrupt it, including kidnapping delegates, sabotaging air vents at the Xcel Energy Center, blocking bridges and "capturing federal buildings" in Minneapolis and St. Paul."

Don't you people see what this is? This is a direct affront to those of us on the Right, those of us who defend traditional values, Christianity, and free market politics.

What galls me is that community activists in the Twin Cities were quick to rush to the defense of the RNC Welcoming Committee, after St. Paul police stormed their local headquarters WITH a search warrant, confiscating materials that could be potentially used for violence.

Of course rather than wait until all the facts emerged, IDIOTS like Dave Thune, council member of Ward 2 in St. Paul, which just happens to be the area where the anarchists, and liberal sympathizers were arrested.

Naturally, idiots representing alternative media, like BeyondChron, are quick to state that because law enforcement staved off a threat from the aforementioned RNC Welcoming Committee, their first amendment rights were violated.

This sort of mentality is typical in the anti-Bush/anti-authority/leftist community: their rights have been usurped. Because the Bush administration tapped the phones of Muslims placing international calls to Pakistan, London, Madrid, and parts unknown, it's naturally an affront to our civil liberties. Of course, 1.) our country has not seen a successful terrorist attack since 9/11 thanks to those measures; 2.) those representing the Leftist/anti-Bush crowd are STILL free to speak out against the president and his administration.

Of course the real tragedy lies in the fact that is indeed the Left usurping our first amendment rights, whether it's an attempted reenactment of the Fairness Doctrine, the passage of HR 1592 in Congress (Bible as Hate speech law), the ultra-liberal San Francisco city government snooping through its citizens' garbage under the auspices of "recycling assurance," or the endless discrimination against Republicans on college campus.

Yet, thanks to our corrupt mainstream media, this stories aren't reported.

Can someone tell me how a group of thugs' rights were violated because they were forbidden to dump their "waste" on unsuspecting victims?

The media: overlooking Obama and scrutinizing Palin

2008-09-03T06:09:00.000-07:00

It's almost ironic.

The mainstream media, that corrupt, liberal institution, unbiased, nonpartisan in theory, has, to no one's surprise overlooked Democratic presidential candidate Barry Hussein Obama's shortcomings, but yet are concentrating their full attention on the dismantling of Republican vice presidential candidate Sarah Palin.

In other words, this will be a character assassination along the lines of the following:

Her 17 year old daughter is pregnant.
Her infant son has Down syndrome and was purportedly her DAUGHTER's baby (can you say, debunked?)
She tried to get her former brother-in-law, an Alaskan state trooper, fired (yet the media won't report that said ex-brother-in-law Tasered his 10 year old step son.).

Palin is, according to author Ann Coulter, "Palin was chosen because she's pro-life, pro-gun, pro-drilling and pro-tax cuts. She's fought both Republicans and Democrats on public corruption and does not have hair plugs like some other vice presidential candidate I could mention. In other words, she's a 'Republican.'"

Thank God. It's time the silent majority take this country and stop the proverbial "taking it in the shorts." It's time to say NO to the shoving of progressive values in our face, and acceptance of said values for fear of being branded a bigot or xenophobe. It's time to tell our beloved elected officials that we want to tap into our country's abundance of natural resources: drill for oil, use our coal, build a sh*tload of nuclear power plants (the France have actually done something right), build a g-damn wall on the Mexican border.

You know what I'm talking about.

Back to the subject at hand. How laughable is it that the corrupt Mainstream Media pounced on the pregnancy of Palin's daughter? Yet, for the past year, it took the National Enquirer, of all media institutions, to break the John Edwards-Rielle Hunter "love child" story. Furthermore, they summarily dismissed the Jesse Jackson affair; how long did the media run that story? A day? Two?

Now, the Liberal Media, of all institutions, is probing into the Bristol Palin pregnancy. This is an establishment, in addition to covering up the indiscretions of its heroes on the Left, who have facilitated the shoving of progressive values and loose morals on our society.

Mistakes happen, and guess what? Palin's daughter is KEEPING her baby and getting married to the father. At least she's not taking the Obama route, courtesy of LifeNews.com:

"When it comes specifically to HIV/AIDS, the most important prevention is education, which should include -- which should include abstinence education and teaching the children -- teaching children, you know, that sex is not something casual," he said.
"But it should also include -- it should also include other, you know, information about contraception because, look, I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old," he added.

"I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby," Obama said."

Twin Cities Conservative: Live from St. Paul

2008-08-30T14:20:00.000-07:00

I just left St. Paul, and my first impression of the Republican National Convention is that every degenerate, every dreg, every low-life, patouli-oil, tree hugger has descended on the scene.

Wow, I'm starting to sound like a liberal: arrogant, condescending, smug, patronizing, elitist, etc. (in other words, true to its racist roots).

It's hard not to be a tad bitter when 1.) an anarchist group operating under the moniker, "RNC Welcoming Committee" was on the verge of causing a riot; 2.) certain community activists automatically assumed, when the local police stormed the group's secret location, WITH search warrant, that the group was harmless and police overstepped its bound.

Incidentally, St. Paul police "seized a variety of items that they believed were tools of civil disobedience: a gas mask, bolt cutters, axes, slingshots, homemade "caltrops" for disabling buses, even buckets of urine."

How can someone defend this sort of mayhem?

"But the raids drew immediate condemnation from activists and St. Paul City Councilman Dave Thune, whose district includes the former theater at 627 Smith Avenue South, which was rented by activists as a gathering space. "

It's amazing, but liberals can...somehow. You see, in their perverse world, it's okay to destroy an unborn baby's life, but rally the troops, so to speak, to preach against the death penalty, or defend sexual predators, or terrorists who wantonly and brazenly kill innocent people in the name of their demented God (see: Hamas, Islamic Jihad, et al).

Liberals: the hypocritical group. They're not afraid to scream when President Bush, who is white, who is Texan, and who is Christian, undertakes measures not envisioned in the venerable FISA bill, to ensure the populace, en masse, is kept safe (e.g. warrantless wiretapping), but are more than happy to resurrect the Fairness Doctrine, have no problem rooting through people's trash, to "ensure everyone is recycling" (and probably don't mind doing a little snooping while its supposedly investigating), utilize thug methods in an effort to force a television station to cease running an ad shedding light, nearly irrefutable mind you, on the relationship with Democratic presidential candidate Barry Soetoro, Dunham, and Obama and domestic terrorist, Bill Ayers, AND, are attempting to pass HR Bill 1592 (ie. Bible as Hate speech law).

Can anyone else see what's wrong this picture?

Will the real Slim Shady please stand up? So what's Barack Obama's REAL Name?

2008-08-29T18:16:00.000-07:00

Any idea? Will the real Slim Shady please stand up?

That's one of the great questions, along with whether the Democratic presidential candidate is actually an American citizen (incidentally, a Clinton supporter has filed a lawsuit, claiming that Obama was not born in Hawaii...that question remains, despite a blogger confessing that he created a "forged" Hawaiian birth certificate).

A faithful conservative reader, in a previous post, offered the following names, all used at one time by the Liberals' "Chosen One:"

Barry Soetoro
Barry Dunham
Barry Obama

The fraud of a candidate continues. Where is the Mainstream Media?

Do you hear that? Yes, I do...crickets if anything. Deafening silence. They've scattered, like cockroaches.

So what is the "Messiah's?" story? Note this, from the Chicago Tribune:

"Obama and his mother moved from Honolulu to Jakarta to join Soetoro in 1967, when Obama was 6. Here, Obama became 'Barry Soetoro.'"

The absurdly left Tribune rambles on about how the notion that 1.) Obama is a Muslim; and 2.) actually an Indonesian citizen are outright lies.

Sure they are...it couldn't possibly be true, could it, Liberals? Where is the art of investigative journalism? It's all but disappeared as the Mainstream Media, so saturated with Leftist rote, refuse to see the forest for the trees.

Of course, this report challenges the notion that Barry Soetoro is a Christian, American citizen, as does this.

Then, the issue exists that Barry Obama's real in fact is not Obama or Soetoro, but instead Barry Dunham; at Barry's birth, his father's girlfriend, Stanley Ann Dunham (yes, real name) was considered to be his father's common law wife as it was accepted practice in 1961to use the American citizen's last name on the birth certificate.

Quick aside, note the following asinine statement from the aforementioned Tribune:

"Some Americans link the religion with terrorism and see Indonesia, the world's most populous Muslim nation, as being an alien place, a world away from the White House."

Of course we link Islam with terrorism. Why is that? Because the vast majority of terrorist attacks are carried out by misguided, unemployed, indoctrinated men in the name of Allah?

Idiots...on the Left, naturally.

Obama camp comments about Palin: Party of the Working Class No Longer...OFFICIALLY

2008-08-29T12:39:00.000-07:00

Message to Barry Hussein Obama and your Leftist enablers: you are officially no longer the party of the working class, middle class, poor, small-town, rural, American citizens.

Pat yourself on the back.

I'm sure your hubris has blinded you to this fact, but after reading the Obama camp response to Republican presidential candidate John McCain announcing Alaska Governor Sarah Palin as his vice presidential candidate, it's all over.

According to the sadistic Huffington Post, "Today, John McCain put the former mayor of a town of 9,000 with zero foreign policy experience a heartbeat away from the presidency. Governor Palin shares John McCain's commitment to overturning Roe v. Wade, the agenda of Big Oil and continuing George Bush's failed economic policies -- that's not the change we need, it's just more of the same."

It's part and parcel with Obama's arrogance; note his "God and guns" comment to a group of San Francisco liberals (rolling eyes), as well as his position on the the environment (including Nancy Pelosi, Al Franken, et al.).

What you're doing by pushing an alternative energy overhaul on the American public, coupled with capping carbon emissions is potentially driving up energy prices, thus crippling small businesses and the middle class.

What happens when the middle class is using most of its paychecks for energy? It stops buying, it stops going out to restaurants, it stops going on vacations. Can you imagine what that will do to the economy?

What happens when small businesses are paying exorbitant energy prices, consuming much of its overhead? It lays off workers, bottom line.

High gas prices, high energy prices, eliminating small businesses will NOT affect Ben Affleck, Sheryl Crow, Michael Moore, among others. But it will affect working class America.

It's just too bad your messianic message has clouded our country's collective judgment. You, as president, will ultimately destroy this country.

Liberal Lies: Common Sense on Nuclear Power

2008-08-29T10:21:00.000-07:00

In ironic fashion, Minnesota politicians are working to overturn a Minnesota moratorium on the construction of new nuclear power plants.

Finally.

Seriously, does it get more boneheaded than prohibiting the construction of nuclear power plants? It's one thing, albeit very lame and devoid of foresight, for liberals to oppose drilling in ANWR and off the our coasts and construction of new refineries, but to prohibit the construction of nuclear power plants? That's something altogether.

According to the Winona Daily News, "Sen. Steve Murphy, DFL-Red Wing, and Republican Rep. Steve Drazkowski, R-Wabasha, have been political opposites and one-time enemies. But on the issue of nuclear power in Minnesota, the two have become unlikely allies.

Murphy and Drazkowski both back an initiative they say is gaining momentum: an effort to repeal Minnesota’s moratorium on construction of new nuclear power plants. They say Minnesota, which last year set aggressive goals to reduce carbon pollution, must join other states and countries to embrace nuclear power as a non-polluting domestic energy source."

Naturally, liberals are skeptical and obviously reticent about overturning the ban. Why? They're concerned about the toxic waste disposal and it's impact on the environment.

Sigh.

Because of their undying devotion to the Environmentalist Church, the green movement would rather place life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness on the backburner while misguided excuses for civil servants (see: Nancy Pelosi) wage a pathetic effort to "save the planet."

According to Barclay G. Jones, professor of nuclear, plasma, and radiological engineering at the University of Illinois, states that "nuclear energy is good for the environment."

"Understand this: For the past quarter century, nuclear energy has been the nation's most important source of clean power for avoiding airborne emissions that result from burning oil, natural gas and coal.

According to a new study by Washington-based Energy Resources International, nuclear energy - by substituting for fossil-fuel power plants - has prevented 219 million tons of sulfur dioxide and 98 million tons of nitrogen oxides from being discharged into the atmosphere since 1973.

For years it has supplied trillions of kilowatt-hours of clean electricity without earning tradable credits under the Clean Air Act. Congress must rectify this oversight by allowing utilities to receive credits for nuclear plants, thereby boosting the value of nuclear plants and helping the ensure their continued operation in a competitive, restructured electricity industry."

When a professor, such as Jones, states that nuclear power is good for the environment, why won't liberals accept such claims?

Primarily, the boneheads on the left have preconceived notions regarding nuclear power, courtesy of rare accidents like Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. Furthermore, said idiots clamor that we need to reduce our dependence on foreign oil.

Great idea; I think most clear-minded, lucid individuals would agree. Yet, since the Left clings to the notion that gasoline is bad, how are we supposed to achieve this end? According to the Leftist propaganda sites like "WagingPeace.com," the waste resulting from creating nuclear power will adversely affect the environment.

Sigh...again.

Who would rather listen to? Groups with a clear agenda like "Waging Peace," or a REPUTABLE group like the Scientific American, "Over the past few decades, however, a series of studies has called these stereotypes into question. Among the surprising conclusions: the waste produced by coal plants is actually more radioactive than that generated by their nuclear counterparts. In fact, fly ash—a by-product from burning coal for power—contains up to 100 times more radiation than nuclear waste."

Furthermore, according to John McCarthy, professor at Stanford University, nuclear power plants can expect to operate for HUNDREDS of years, thus outlasting oil fields, wind generators, and solar panels.

Also, McCarthy states that the notion of nuclear waste is completely overstated:

"When fuel rods are removed from the reactor they contain large quantities of highly radioactive fission products and are generating heat at a high rate. They are then put in a large tank of water about the size of a swimming pool. There they become less radioactive as the more highly radioactive isotopes decay and also generate less and less heat. The longer the spent fuel is stored, the easier it will be to handle, but many reactors have been holding spent fuel so long that their tanks are getting full. They must either send the rods off or build more tanks."

According to a 1998 report, there has never been a release of radioactivity when it's stored in large pools of water.

" Once the fission process has slowed, the fuel rods are replaced. The spent fuel rods contain highly radioactive fission products and must be stored safely. These used fuel rods are considered high level nuclear waste. Currently all high level nuclear waste is stored in large pools of water at the power plants where it was generated. Seven to ten feet of water is enough to stop all radioactivity (Keeny, 1998). Since the late 1950's, high level nuclear waste has been stored in this form, and there has never been any release of radioactivity. There is actually a relatively small amount of high level nuclear waste. All of the waste ever produced in the history of commercial nuclear power production in the United States would cover the area of a football field four yards high (NEI: High-level waste, 1998). "

Unfortunately, we shut down our reprocessing plant during the 1970's.

In Minnesota, it's the Democrats, naturally, that oppose the construction of nuclear plants. It's not surprising.

Hypocritical liberals infringing on civil liberties in San Francisco

2008-08-28T09:13:00.000-07:00

A few weeks ago, my fiance and I were issued a warning by our apartment managers. Evidently, I had inadvertently disposed of some magazines without first putting themin a plastic garbage bag. On our warning letter, slid under our door during the dark of night, was a photocopy of my name, address, etc. on a copy of ESPN the magazine.

One can imagine to what lengths the apartment managers undertook to root through trash. Undoubtedly, they RUMMAGED through the dumpster, verifying that all waste was properly disposed.

This story is oddly reminiscent of a measure being considered by the obnoxiously liberal San Francisco city government, whereby, in an effort to ensure its citizens are properly recycling, will snoop through their garbage.

According to SFGate.com, "Garbage collectors would inspect San Francisco residents' trash to make sure pizza crusts aren't mixed in with chip bags or wine bottles under a proposal by Mayor Gavin Newsom."

"And if residents or businesses don't separate the coffee grounds from the newspapers, they would face fines of up to $1,000 and eventually could have their garbage service stopped."

Anyone else notice an issue here? Of course; anyone with a half-a-mind (does not include liberals, unfortunately) will question what the government is doing 1.) with the garbage; 2.) and also what ELSE they're doing while they're verifying that its' citizens are properly recycling its waste.

We've heard the obnoxious Left clamor that President Bush usurped the Constitution by engaging in a clandestine warrantless wiretapping program aimed at fighting Islamic terrorists. If those same idiots on the Left are not outraged at this veiled attempt by the San Francicso city government to keep tabs on their citizens, then they're hypocrites.

Which, sadly, they are. Wny? Because said actions potentially perpetrated by the SF government is conducted in the name of Environmentalism. Because they worship in the Green Church, the Left can institute such draconian, blatant violations of our basic civil liberties...

All to worship the Gods of Green.

Note the following from the Christian Science Monitor:

"Ever-perceived by the rest of the nation as perched on the fringe of rationality, San Francisco is about to flip its lid once again. The lid's color, if it's any comfort, is green – as in one of the three recycling bins into which its residents will be forced to sort their food waste.

History repeatedly reminds us that extreme fervor by government leads to infringement on basic rights. Yet eager, young, and even brilliant leaders experience moments of impaired reason when confronted with an idea that appears a perfect solution for a historical moment."

Hypocrisy at their finest; with the Left, the hypocrisy is nothing new.

Liberal Lies: Carbon Dioxide as a Pollutant and the Global Warming Lie

2008-08-27T12:26:00.000-07:00

In this week's installment of Liberal Lies, the Twin Cities Conservative takes a crack at the supposed foregone conclusion that Carbon Dioxide is a pollutant.

Quick aside, the idea of denouncing or debunking commonly held liberal lies must be completely credited to AWESOME conservative author Gregg Jackson, who wrote the stunning conservative bible: Conservative Comebacks to Liberal Lies.

We've heard former President William Jefferson Clinton clamor on occasion that the the Republicans were conspiring against him. But it's plainly obvious that the Left has orchestrated a massive effort, on a global scale, to bring down the American economy through the lie known as global warming.

Here's the bottom line, and I hope that some liberals can embrace this:

According to Environmental Chemistry, "Carbon Dioxide is a natural component of the atmosphere and is needed by plants in order to carry out photosynthesis.?

Of course, liberal propagandists like Melissa Carey, a climate policy specialist for Environmental Defense smugly responds with clever comebacks like the following, "'Refusing to call greenhouse-gas emissions a pollutant is like refusing to say that smoking causes lung cancer,' responded Melissa Carey, a climate policy specialist for Environmental Defense, a New York-based environmental group. 'The Earth is round. Elvis is dead. Climate change is happening.'"

Au contraire, Melissa. In fact, there is a just momentum towards the theory that the Earth is actually cooling. Note your beloved liberal Time and Newsweek, which only thirty years ago portended a coming ice age.

Furthermore, there is no consensus in the scientific community that global warming 1.) exists; 2.) is caused by humans; and 3.) if it DOES exist, it is nothing more than part of cyclical weather pattern that has occurred for BILLIONS of years.

So don't proclaim to us, with your superior Liberal hubris, that "climate change is happening."

As Real Climate.com states, "The lesson to take from this is the obvious one: not to take your science stories from the mass media if you can possibly find better sources. Which nowadays are readily available: the IPCC report for a solid review of the state of the science; and RealClimate for more topical stuff."

Yet, it's the Mainstream Media that has perpetuated this Global Warming Lie. Despite efforts to suppress the climate change truth, diligent reporters, scientists, and general do-gooders have attempted to shed light on the global warming phenomenon.

Note the following headlines from IceAgeNow.com:

2008 on track to be coolest year this century
21 Aug 08- Data from the UK Met Office shows that temperatures in
the first half of the year have been more than 0.1 Celsius cooler than any
year since 2000.
See 2008 on track to be coolest year this century

Meteorologist predicts 'global climate will become
similar to the colder temperatures experienced during the 1800s'
25 Aug 08 - Global temperatures have cooled during the past 12 months.
During 2008 and 2009 the first stage of global cooling will cool the world’s
temperatures to those observed during the years from the 1940s through
the 1970s. By the year 2023 global climate will become similar to the
colder temperatures experienced during the 1800s.
See As cold as the 1800s
.
.
Probability 94% for imminent global cooling
20 Aug 07 - Australian engineer Dr. Peter Harris authored a paper entitled
"Probability of Sudden Global Cooling." The data clearly shows, said Harris,
that the nominal 100KY cycle for glaciation and the interglacial phases have
reached the end of the typical interglacial cycle and are due for a sudden
cooling climate change.
See Probability 94% for imminent global cooling

This sort of flies in the face of what nincompoops like Carey above have pontificated, doesn't it?

Note the following from the Weather Climate Report:

Antarctica Snowfall Increase

Filed under: Antarctic, Polar —

The ice caps hold a special place in the cold hearts of the global warming advocates who are all too quick to insist that our ice caps are currently melting at an unprecedented rate. We suspect that they will not be particularly thrilled to learn that a paper has just appeared in Geophysical Research Letters entitled “A doubling in snow accumulation in the western Antarctic Peninsula since 1850.” The article is by scientists with the British Antarctic Survey and the Desert Research Institute in Reno, Nevada; the work was funded by the UK Natural Environment Research Council and the U.S. National Science Foundation. In case you think that the Desert Research Institute in Nevada would have little interest in Antarctica, recall from geography classes you’ve had that Antarctica receives little precipitation and is regarded by climatologists as a frozen desert.

Finally, note this chart prepared by Cliff Harris and Randy Mann, a climatologist and meteorologist, respectively, from LongRangeWeather.com:

What does this tell you? It says that various warm cycles have occurred in eras PRIOR to pollution, industrial consumption, smog, etc. It also states that the Earth is fairly impervious to humankind; in other words, it's climate is independent from noxious gases, as cited by boneheads like Carey above, as contributors to "climate change."From what we know about the Earth's weather history, there was in fact more carbon dioxide, up to 80% over a billion years ago! Who was driving then?

So to pompous Leftists like Carey, don't preach to us about how "climate change is happening." OH wait, it is...except it's not getting hotter, it's getting cooler.

Media aglow with Hilary's speech

2008-08-27T08:34:00.001-07:00

I think I just threw up in my mouth.

While I knew the Mainstream Media is corrupt and reprehensibly liberal, they never cease to amaze me at the lengths they'll travel to fellate our Democratic civil servants.

Have you seen this article, courtesy of US News and World Report? It consists of a MSM coverage roundup of Hillary Clinton's speech last night at the Democratic National Convention. Note the following:

Hillary Clinton last night addressed the Democratic delegates gathered in Denver, and urged them to back her former rival Barack Obama. The speech, and Clinton's delivery of it, are receiving extremely positive reviews in today's newspapers. On its front page, the Los Angeles Times reports Clinton accepted "defeat with grace and generosity," and "moved to close the divide among fellow Democrats on Tuesday night by offering a forceful and unequivocal endorsement of her fierce rival." The New York Times reports Clinton "deferred her own dreams on Tuesday night and delivered an emphatic plea at the Democratic National Convention to unite behind her rival, Senator Barack Obama, no matter what ill will lingers." The New York senator "betrayed none of the anger and disappointment that she still feels and that, friends say, has especially haunted her husband." The Washington Times refers to a "rousing speech" that laid "rest to a bitter primary battle that left many of her supporters -- especially women -- seething months later." The AP reports "the speech was as much of an attack "on Sen. John McCain "as it was an embrace of Obama." The Washington Post reports Clinton said, "You haven't worked so hard over the last 18 months, or endured the last eight years, to suffer through more failed leadership. No way. No how. No McCain. Barack Obama is my candidate. And he must be our president."

The Rocky Mountain News says Clinton "did her best to put the hard feelings to rest." While the Denver Post headlines its story "Clinton: The Team Player," and notes that "Michael Barone, a conservative commentator, was nearly as lavish in his praise: 'If you read through the text, it's unimpeachable -- I guess I shouldn't use that term. It makes a logical case for people supporting Obama for the reasons they supported Hillary Clinton, in a rather artful way.'"

On ABC World News, which aired prior to the speech, ABC's chief Washington correspondent George Stephanopoulos contended that Sen. Clinton "genuinely believes that if John McCain wins it will be bad for the country. She knows that. She wants Barack Obama to win, whatever disappointment she feels. Whatever anger she feels about Barack Obama. And that's real, too."

Has anyone else excused themselves to vomit?

Star Tribune: Iraq War still matters to Democrats

2008-08-27T06:51:00.000-07:00

We're likely to hear the same defeatist rhetoric from Washington insider and Democratic Vice Presidential candidate, Joe Biden at the Democratic National Convention in Denver.

You've heard the familiar lamentation from the Left: we need to get out of Iraq, this was an illegal war, Bush is worse than Hitler/Saddam/Stalin, etc, and he should be prosecuted for war crimes.

Yawn.

According to the Minneapolis Star-Tribune, Iraq still matters to delegates. If this story exposes anything, it epitomizes misplaced priorities in the Liberal agenda:

Universal health care, alternative energy, surrender from Iraq.

Furthermore, it demonstrates how inexplicably naive and misinformed the Left is.

"Minnesota delegate Miguel Lindgren, of Roseville, said he is worried that Iraq is taking a back seat to the convention's focus on domestic issues.

'I haven't heard much, and it concerns me," Lindgren said. 'Obviously, we're getting lost in the hype and the hoopla in the convention talking about issues at home finally, but we need to readdress the war.'"

Of course it is, you nincompoop. The war is going well, despite every effort from your corrupt liberal mainstream media to paint it as the second coming of Vietnam. Even your beloved Messiah, Democratic presidential candidate Barry Hussein Obama is having a difficult time portraying Iraq as a failure.

There ARE more pressing issues our future president needs to address, primarily a sinking dollar, sluggish economy, insane gas prices, etc.

"And one of the more forceful comments about Iraq at the convention came from Sen. Edward Kennedy on Monday night. 'Barack Obama will be a commander in chief who understands that young Americans in uniform must never be committed to a mistake, but always to a mission worthy of their bravery,' Kennedy told the crowd."

What a disengenous boob. You and your Leftist ilk (namely Bill Clinton and Al Gore) were clamoring for the dismissal of Saddam Hussein in the 1990's while maintaining that the Iraqi despot was feverishly working on a WMD program consisting of nuclear, biological, and chemical weapons. Even your new VP candidate had strong words about Saddam earlier this decade (thank you Gateway.com):

Here is the transcript of Joe "Glowstick" Biden speaking about Saddam's WMD.
Joe Biden on Meet the Press on Sunday April 29, 2007:

MR. RUSSERT: I want to go back to 2002, because it’s important as to what people were saying then and what the American people were hearing. Here’s Joe Biden about Saddam Hussein: “He’s a long term threat and a short term threat to our national security.”

“We have no choice but to eliminate the threat. This is a guy who is an extreme danger to the world.”

“He must be dislodged from his weapons or dislodged from power.” You were emphatic about that.

SEN. BIDEN: That’s right, and I was correct about that. He must be, in fact—and remember the weapons we were talking about. I also said on your show, that’s part of what I said, but not all of what I meant. What I also said on your show at the time was that I did not think he had weaponized his material, but he did have. When, when the inspectors left after Saddam kicked them out, there was a cataloguing at the United Nations saying he had X tons of, X amount of, and they listed the various materials he had. The big issue, remember, on this show we talked about, was whether he had weaponized them. Remember you asked me about those flights that were taking place in southern Iraq, where—were they spraying anthrax? And, you know, what would happen? And, you know, so on and so forth. And I pointed out to you that they had not developed that capacity at all. But he did have these stockpiles everywhere.

MR. RUSSERT: Where are they?

SEN. BIDEN: Well, the point is, it turned out they didn’t, but everyone in the world thought he had them.

The weapons inspectors said he had them. He catalogued—they catalogued them. This was not some, some Cheney, you know, pipe dream. This was, in fact, catalogued. They looked at them and catalogued. What he did with them, who knows? The real mystery is, if he, if he didn’t have any of them left, why didn’t he say so? Well, a lot of people say if he had said that, he would’ve, you know, emboldened Iran and so on and so forth.

But does it really surprise anyone that the Left refuses to address incriminations from its dear beloved Democratic leaders when THEY admonish the world for failing to act against a ruthless tyrant? No, only when it comes from a Republican.

Typical.

Barry Obama: Silencing Dissent regarding his ties to the Weather Underground

2008-08-26T10:42:00.000-07:00

First of all, thank you Michelle Malkin, arguably the BEST conservative blogger on the web, for posting this story:

"I cannot stress how outrageous the Obama campaign’s attempt to silence the creators of the Ayers ad is. Mr. Hope and Change is applying Chicago-style mafia tactics to intimidate those who want to alert the nation to Obama’s troubling ties to, and longtime relationship with, the unrepentant Weather Underground terrorist. Obama’s lawyers and minions are playing hardball with TV stations that have dared to air the ad. They have the gall to champion campaign finance integrity — even as Obama has just admitted hiding payments to his Chicago cronies at ACORN. The Obama campaign can’t cite anything false or defamatory about the ad because it is accurate and truthful. This intimidation campaign is of a piece with the left-wing MoveOn effort to bully GOP donors. Remember?"

The American Issues Project, in response, ran a television ad outlining Obama's relationship with Ayers. In response, "The Barack Obama campaign has resorted to a campaign of intimidation and legal threats to convince television stations and the federal government to force off the air an ad by the American Issues Project detailing the link between Sen. Obama and remorseless domestic terrorist William Ayers."

"The Obama campaign has been contacting stations running American Issues Project’s ad in an unsuccessful attempt to compel them to pull the spot. The Obama campaign also sent a letter yesterday to the Department of Justice asking the government to investigate American Issues Project, its officers, board of directors, and donors. With no success on either front, the campaign has begun running its own ad in response. Notably, this ad fails to dispute a single fact in the American Issues Project’s initial ad."

For those of you that do not remember, Democratic presidential Barry Hussein Obama, the self-proclaimed unifier and Washington outsider, has a bit of a sordid past that he and his enablers in the Mainstream Media have been trying to sweep under the rug. In this case, it's his cavorting with domestic terrorist William Ayers.

So essentially, through HR Bill 1592, an attempted reenactment of the Fairness Doctrine, efforts by the San Francisco city government to rifle through your trash, among others, it's the damn liberals and their goddamn Democratic benefactors that are suppressing your civil rights and freedom of speech.

Once again, thank you Mainstream Media for failing to shed light on your chosen one's questionable political ties, religious relationships, and verbal gaffes. Instead, for the past eight years, you've exposed a clandestine Bush program that kept us safe from terrorists, run ads calling General Petraeus, "General Betray Us," and refused to run stories chronicling the successes in the Iraq War.

Is Barry Obama an American Citizen?

2008-08-25T12:35:00.001-07:00

Here's a story the corrupt liberal Mainstream Media won't report (courtesty of the HillaryProject website):

"Clinton supporter sues Obama on grounds he is constitutionally ineligble for Presidency"

One of the highlights from the story, other than Democratic presidential candidate Barry Obama's status as an American citizen by birth, is that his Hawaiian birth certificate has been confirmed by three sources as being a forged document.

Thank you Mainstream Media (note: sarcasm). Thank you for doing your best to keep Obama's skeletons in the closet, for doing your best to stifle reports that he cavorted with racists, terrorists, dirty politicans (Chicago is about as dirty a town as they come) and fraudelent real estate moguls (Tony Rezko).

Here's the complete story:

By: Jeffrey Schreiber
A prominent Philadelphia attorney and Hillary Clinton supporter filed suit yesterday afternoon in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania against Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, the Democratic National Committee and the Federal Election Commission.
The action seeks an injunction preventing the senator from continuing his candidacy and a court order enjoining the DNC from nominating him next week, all on grounds that Sen. Obama is constitutionally ineligible to run for and hold the office of President of the United States.

Phillip Berg, the filing attorney, is a former gubernatorial and senatorial candidate, former chair of the Democratic Party in Montgomery (PA) County, former member of the Democratic State Committee, and former Deputy Attorney General of Pennsylvania. According to Berg, he filed the suit--just days before the DNC is to hold its nominating convention in Denver--for the health of the Democratic Party. "I filed this action at this time," Berg stated, "to avoid the obvious problems that will occur when the Republican Party raises these issues after Obama is nominated.".

Berg cited a number of unanswered questions regarding the Illinois senator's background, and in today's lawsuit maintained that Sen. Obama is not a natural born U.S. citizen or that, if he ever was, he lost his citizenship when he was adopted in Indonesia. Berg also cites what he calls "dual loyalties" due to his citizenship and ties with Kenya and Indonesia.
Even if Sen. Obama can prove his U.S. citizenship, Berg stated, citing the senator's use of a birth certificate from the state of Hawaii verified as a forgery by three independent document forensic experts, the issue of "multi-citizenship with responsibilities owed to and allegiance to other countries" remains on the table.
In the lawsuit, Berg states that Sen. Obama was born in Kenya, and not in Hawaii as the senator maintains. Before giving birth, according to the lawsuit, Obama's mother traveled to Kenya with his father but was prevented from flying back to Hawaii because of the late stage of her pregnancy, "apparently a normal restriction to avoid births during a flight." As Sen. Obama's own paternal grandmother, half-brother and half-sister have also claimed, Berg maintains that Stanley Ann Dunham--Obama's mother--gave birth to little Barack in Kenya and subsequently flew to Hawaii to register the birth.

The Left's Global Warming Crusade: Blood on their Hands

2008-08-25T07:50:00.001-07:00

So it's really the Left that has blood on their hands...

It's their deranged view that the world is in danger, and that we must all make tremendous sacrifices to save her, even at the cost of our livelihood, our jobs, our houses, our security, and even our lives, just so we can reduce carbon emissions.

Do you remember Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) stating that she was trying to "save the planet?" Her and others of her ilk have made it their top priority to "save the planet" while placing the welfare of humankind on the back burner.

We've heard the Left screaming about President Bush's "illegal" invasion of Iraq. despite our incessant efforts to solve the Saddam problem diplomatically; subsequently he's a war criminal in their eyes.

But it's truly the Left that has blood on their hands.

Their global warming "push" truly goes hand in hand with their stance on abortion and ultimately population control. In fact, is it any wonder that Democratic presidential candidate Barry Hussein Obama refused to support the Illinois Born Alive Infant Protection Act when he was a state senator?

Here's the common denominator:

The Left simply does not value human life...well, they do, but it's actually the lives of terrorists, murderers, and rapists to whom they place value, while utterly disregarding the well-being of innocent victims and completely innocent babies.

Furthermore, this almost-psychopathic view towards all things oil (including gasoline) has led to high food prices and subsequent GLOBAL POVERTY. How so, ask the mindless Left?

This unhealthy, macabre obsession with ethanol has driven up oil prices. Consider this from The Economist:

"But the rise in prices is also the self-inflicted result of America's reckless ethanol subsidies. This year biofuels will take a third of America's (record) maize harvest. That affects food markets directly: fill up an SUV's fuel tank with ethanol and you have used enough maize to feed a person for a year. And it affects them indirectly, as farmers switch to maize from other crops. The 30m tonnes of extra maize going to ethanol this year amounts to half the fall in the world's overall grain stocks."

I don't think the evidence could be any clearer; the Left, for years has claimed it represents the poor, the working class, minorities, NON-Christians, etc. But the philosophical change in the Democrat orthodoxy is oh so evident: rather than purport to care about the under-nourished or misfortunate, it's true god are the special interests, namely on the anti-war and environmental front.

Huffington Post: It's okay if Obama is a Muslim

2008-08-21T05:31:00.000-07:00

More brilliant and objective insight from the Huffington Post, once again.

Sarcasm...

I came across this story which serves a dual purpose by reinforcing the marriage between the Left and Islam while displaying the Left's mindless, inane lack of foresight. Essentially, the author attempts to convey the notion that while Barry Hussein Obama is NOT a Muslim, it would be okay if he was.

Personally, I don't think Barry is a member of the Islamic faith; but, I do think it would be disappointing if he was. Contrary to what the Left would like the rest of us believe, this country was built on Judeo-Christian values. Said values fly in the face of the moral relativism, a "faith" to which the Left adhere.

Of course it would make sense for the Left to embrace the teachings of the Koran and the Islamic faith in general. Who else could justify suicide bombings, beheadings of Americans, the abuse of women, misogyny, persecution of non-Muslim faiths in Muslim countries, etc. This is the same group (the Left) that has brought you abortions, infanticide, justice for criminals rather than victims, suppression of free speech and thought (see attempted revival of the Fairness Doctrine, Hate Speech bill HR 1592, etc.).

So the author in this brilliant piece of journalist work (note: sarcasm) states that it would be okay for Barry Hussein to lay claim to the Islamic faith? My reaction, how is this good for our country? First, the Left naively belief that people of all faiths (or non-faiths) and creeds can "coexist" under one large, multicultural tent. Furthermore, they, in their narrow perception, have fought to remove all semblances of God and the Bible from our daily lives, whether it's school, government, etc.

Second, with that said, if the Left thought they had problems living in a country where they MISTAKENLY believe Judeo-Christian principles have been forced down their throats, try living in a theocracy, such as Iran or Saudi Arabia.

This is not to say that Barry Obama would transform this country instantly into an Islamic theocracy (if he WAS Muslim) but would it surprise anyone, considering the Democrats in our Congress are slowly moving towards outlawing the Bible as hate speech (see above bill HR 1592), thus marginalizing Christians while collectively shoving their progressive values down our throats.

Seems a bit, how you say, hypocritical and perhaps ironic?

Here's a news flash to the Left: I know this is hard to believe, but Islam is not a tolerate, open, religion of peace. But, it's not surprisingly that the Left has hitched themselves to the Islamic wagon; we've witnessed first-hand whose side they're on in the War on Terror.

My first thoughts regarding the author's treatise is that her plea for the country as a whole to embrace Islam stems from an encounter with a local schoolteacher. Thus immediately from the beginning of her story, she's operating under the impression that white American consists largely of Islamophobists who wonder if she'll return to "the middle east."

Furthermore, the author makes further inane comparisons to her treatment as a Muslim to that of Japanese-Americans during World War II:

"During World War II, Japanese Americans were sent to internment camps because they were presumed to be loyal to Japan (no matter how many generations their families had lived in America). The destruction of the World Trade Towers was a type of Pearl Harbor, casting suspicion on American Muslims this time instead of Japanese Americans. But al-Qaeda is no more representative of Islam than the Ku Klux Klan is representative of Christianity."

That's absolutely outrageous in both regards. Muslims who have emigrated to this country enjoy unsurpassed freedoms they could unequivocally NOT enjoy in their native country. Furthermore, your so-called religion of peace, has shown in a recent poll in this country, identifies with its extremist "fringe" while justifying the use of violence against "infidels."

The author also mistakingly says that her religion doesn't get a fair shake in the media:

"We don't get much of a voice in the media, but we are, as a group, middle class and mainstream."

You don't get a voice in the media? At every turn, the media attempts to portray Muslims as peaceful members of society while ULTIMATELY 1.) mistakingly equating violence perpetuated by the radicals to that of a Christian who kills an abortion doctor; 2.) unabashedly portraying Muslims as the victims in the War on Terror, whether it's stories about citizens in Iraq or Afghanistan being killed during an Allied air strike, stories justifying a suicide bomber's motives, or casting light on President Bush's warrantless wiretapping program, WHICH have targeted INTERNATIONAL telephone calls between Muslims here in this country and abroad.

Give me a break.

You have it good here, lady.

That's it...it's time to go! NATO declines to really punish Russia

2008-08-20T06:29:00.000-07:00

It really shouldn't surprise anyone that Europe will never learn from her mistakes. Time after time, she cowered in the face of danger, rather than confront an imminent threat.

Germany, Soviet Union, Islamofascists, etc. just to name a few.

And again, Europe curled in the fetal position, pathetically sucking its thumb.

According to MSNBC.com, "NATO pulled its punches against Russia on Tuesday, suspending formal contacts as punishment for the Georgia invasion but bucking U.S. pressure for more severe penalties."

And in typical Russian fashion, the country's ambassador stated that Europe and the United States completely overreacted: "'The mountain gave birth to a mouse,' said Dmitry Rogozin.

Of course, the Russians claim they invaded Georgia to save citizens in South Ossetia, which has claimed independence from its parent country. With that said, the United Nations, to which most of the Left adhere, states that South Ossetia formerly belongs to Georgia: "The United Nations, European Union, Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE), Council of the European Union, North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) and all other countries in the world recognize South Ossetia as part of Georgia."

So when the rest of world finally possessed the ability to do SOMETHING about Russian aggression, it sat on its hands...again.

Why is that? Could it be that Russia controls a massive flow of oil into Europe. In the past, when the Russians attempted to make a political point, they've cut off the flow of oil into Europe, as it did when it engaged in a trade row with Belarus, thus punishing Germany, Poland, and the Ukraine.

Earlier this year, Russia cut oil to the Czech Republic by 50%, citing "technical difficulties." Of course beneath the facade of such fabrications Russia cut oil to make a statement. Recently, the United States and the Czechs signed an agreement to place missiles on Czech soil.

As Scotsman.com says, Russia knows it can invade Georgia under the guise of protecting its citizens in South Ossetia without fear or reprisal. She knows that Europe depends to a large extent on Russian oil.

"The subtext of the Russian invasion is the so-called Nabucco pipeline. This is a project being promoted by the EC to run natural gas from Azerbaijan, through Georgia and Turkey, and thence into the EU, via a major natural gas hub in Austria. Nabucco would by-pass Russia, relieving Europe of its risky dependence on Russian gas. The EU gets around 40 per cent of its gas from Russia, but this will rise to well over half as energy demand intensifies. Unfortunately, Moscow is prone to turning off the gas tap if it does not get what it wants politically."

Of course the United States' hands are tied as well. It's already overextended in Iraq and Afghanistan, with a potential for further conflict in Iran if her nuclear program cannot be curtailed. Our gestures and statements have essentially

The bottom line is that Russia has the upper hand. It knows it can sway decisions based almost purely on energy needs.