Archive for April, 2009

20 (Not so Great) Moments from Obama’s First 100 Days

Posted on April 30, 2009. Filed under: Liberal Idiots, Media Bias, Obama, Socialism/Communism, Terrorism |

Brilliant article! And he’s right…one day future generations will wonder why we are no longer a super power and this article will be very informative as to how that happened – it started with Obama’s presidency! Let’s stop this from happening – Impeach Obama!

20 Great Moments from Obama’s First 100 Days!

by John Hawkins

Future generations will want to study Barack Obama’s presidency, not only because he made history by being America’s first black President, but because he also appears to be on track to be America’s worst President. Sure, everybody wants to know the minute details of what Abe Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt did in the White House, but how many Americans are clamoring for the full story of the U.S. Grant or Jimmy Carter presidencies? 

That’s a shame, too, because those who don’t remember history are doomed to repeat it and it’s not certain that America could survive another incompetent of Obama’s caliber in charge — although, in all fairness, Rome made it through quite a few emperors who were probably only marginally more on the ball than Obama, so perhaps I’m being overly pessimistic.

In any case, one day` when future generations of Americans are studying chapters of their American history books like, “No longer a Super Power: The Long Slide Down” or alternately, “Why We’re Eating Our Own Shoe Leather Now,” I’d like to think that articles like this one will be helpful for them.

In no particular order:

20) In another historic first, Obama has opened up the possibility that members of the party out-of-power now may be arrested and thrown in jail over political disagreements — in this case, over the legality of waterboarding, making terrorists tired, and making them swleeeeeepy!

Granted, policies of that sort have consistently led to retaliatory arrests, bloodshed, and even revolution in other countries, but since Obama is repeating many of FDR’s failed plans, the fact that these schemes have led to disaster since before even the days of the Roman Empire probably isn’t going to phase him.

19) In another great moment for the presidency, Barack Obama publicly referred to his own country as “arrogant” while he was in Strasbourg, France. Jeremiah Wright must be so proud! 

18) In what appeared to be an effort to undercut the nationwide anti-tax Tea Parties that occurred on April 15th, Janet Napolitano released a report that encouraged law enforcement agencies to be wary of military veterans and, Right-wing extremists as ‘groups and individuals that are dedicated to a single issue, such as opposition to abortion or immigration,’ and includes those ‘rejecting federal authority in favor of state or local authority.’

Make no mistake about it: if the Founding Fathers were alive today, every one of them would be on the Department of Homeland Security “right wing extremist” watch list.

17) The only thing more startling than finding out that there were banks that want to give back hundreds of millions of dollars worth of taxpayer money was being told that Barack Obama’s administration was refusing to let them give the money back so he could retain control over the banks.

 16) After rebuking freedom-loving Venezuelans by shaking hands with their thuggish dictator for life, Hugo Chavez, Barack Obama accepted an anti-American book that Chavez gave him as a gift. A President who loved the country he led would have been insulted. Obama probably just thought, “At least he didn’t get me a bunch of DVDs that won’t work in my DVR.”

15) Under Obama’s hear-no-evil, see-no-evil leadership, people around the world are for the first time wondering: which group of radical Islamists who want to kill millions of Americans will get their hands on nukes first? Will it be the Ayatollahs in Iran or Al Qaeda and the Taliban — who, emboldened by Obama’s weakness, have begun trying to take over Pakistan in earnest.

14) In a move that has typically only been seen in banana republics run by tinpot Castro wannabes, Barack Obama became super-CEO of General Motors by firing the CEO and most of the board, while dictating how they were going to run their company in the future. It would be far more comforting if Obama had, say, as much business experience as an assistant manager at Burger King, since he’s now running one of the world’s largest companies. 

13) After ferociously attacking earmarks during the campaign, Barack Obama signed a budget with over 8,000 earmarks in it. However, it was Obama’s calls for earmark reform on the very same day he signed a bill larded up with a staggering number of pork projects that showed the sort of utter shamelessness that makes him stand out in the sea of con men, hustlers, and flim-flam artists on Capitol Hill.

12) Despite the fact that Obama went to an anti-white church, he ran on racial reconciliation. Therefore, it was a wee bit of surprise when his attorney general, Eric Holder, described America as a, “nation of cowards.” Perhaps Holder lost his bearings for a minute, thought he was overseas, and figured that would be an applause line. That’s certainly a tactic his boss uses on a regular basis. 

11) Once again, Obama made history — not by breaking his campaign promise that no one making under 250k a year would have to pay new taxes, but by proposing the largest tax increase in the history of the world with his cap and trade plan. The cost per family of Obama’s tax increase? $3,900 per household.

 10) In a stunning display of haphazard incompetence that quickly came to define Obama’s scattershot approach to foreign affairs, Barack Obama gave Gordon Brown, the British Prime Minister, 25 DVDs that wouldn’t even play in a British DVD player. Tragically, that probably meant the British head of state wasn’t able to unwind after a hard day’s work by watching Psycho — which, yes, really was one of the movies Obama gave him. 

9) Most of America watched Barack Obama deeply bow to the Saudi king either on YouTube or the news, which made the “who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes” denial that there was a bow, that came from the White House all the more stunning.

8) Despite the fact that Obama’s State Department has more than 18,000 employees, apparently none of them speak Russian because Hillary Clinton handed Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov a button that was supposed to say “reset” It actually said “overcharge,” so perhaps it was meant for one of the hundreds of companies now suckling at the government teat thanks to the stimulus and TARP.

 7) In the best example yet of Obama’s over-reliance on a teleprompter and the mainstream media’s fervent devotion to him, during an appearance with the Irish prime minister, there was a mix-up — and “President Obama thanked President Obama for inviting everyone over.” The same mainstream media which relentlessly mocked George Bush for his slip-ups wouldn’t even release the footage.

 6) In yet another horrible precedent, the man who talked ceaselessly about bipartisanship and unity when he was running for President, yanked the census away from the Commerce Department so it could be manipulated to help the Democratic Party. There’s nothing quite like preparing to cheat Republican states out of electoral votes and congressional representatives to help heal that partisan divide in the country! 

5) In another wonderful moment that truly gives you insight into Barack Obama’s raging narcissism, he actually gave the Queen of England an iPod that featured photos of himself and audio of his speeches. Many observers were undoubtedly surprised that Obama didn’t force the queen to sit down and watch a slideshow of his last trip to the Grand Canyon, but he may be saving that treat for a future meeting.

 4) After listening to a fifty minute rant against his country from fellow socialist Daniel Ortega of Nicaragua, Obama responded, “I’m grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old.” Translation: Trash America all you like as long as you say nice things about me. 

3) In a move that is shockingly typical of Obama’s modus operandi, it was announced that he was closing the prison for terrorists at Guantanamo Bay despite the fact he has yet to figure out what to do with the prisoners. This is sort of like opening all the cages at the zoo and not worrying about what happens next — except worse. Lions don’t strap bombs to themselves and blow up buildings, but terrorists do, and it now looks like some of the terrorists from Gitmo may actually be released into the United States population.

 2) While in Turkey on his “Trash America” tour, Barack Obama said this, “We do not consider ourselves a Christian nation, a Jewish nation or a Muslim nation. uh uh We consider ourselves uh uh a nation of US citizens” What’s this “we” stuff, pal?

1) If you want evidence of how the government “watchdogs” of the mainstream press have turned into lapdogs on Obama’s watch, you couldn’t do much better than White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs giving them a “strong A” grade. Roll over. Fetch! That’s a good press watchdog! Who wants his belly scratched? 

PS: If you’re wondering why Barack Obama’s approval rating isn’t at about 23% after all these screw-ups, this last one explains it. 

LINK: http://townhall.com/columnists/JohnHawkins/2009/04/28/20_great_moments_from_obamas_first_100_days!

Advertisements
Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Nine Questions the Left Needs to Answer About Torture

Posted on April 30, 2009. Filed under: Liberal Idiots, Military, Obama, Political Correctness, Politicians, Politics, Terrorism |

Great article by Dennis Prager!

Nine Questions the Left Needs to Answer About Torture

by Dennis Prager

Any human being with a functioning conscience or a decent heart loathes torture. Its exercise has been a blight on humanity. With this in mind, those who oppose what the Bush administration did to some terror suspects may be justified. But in order to ascertain whether they are, they need to respond to some questions:

1. Given how much you rightly hate torture, why did you oppose the removal of Saddam Hussein, whose prisons engaged in far more hideous tortures, on thousands of times more people, than America did — all of whom, moreover, were individuals and families who either did nothing or simply opposed tyranny? One assumes, furthermore, that all those Iraqi innocents Saddam had put into shredding machines or whose tongues were cut out and other hideous tortures would have begged to be waterboarded.

2. Are all forms of painful pressure equally morally objectionable? In other words, are you willing to acknowledge that there are gradations of torture as, for example, there are gradations of burns, with a third-degree burn considerably more injurious and painful than a first-degree burn? Or is all painful treatment to be considered torture? Just as you, correctly, ask proponents of waterboarding where they draw their line, you, too, must explain where you draw your line.

 3. Is any maltreatment of anyone at any time — even a high-level terrorist with knowledge that would likely save innocents’ lives — wrong? If there is no question about the identity of a terror suspect , and he can provide information on al-Qaida — for the sake of clarity, let us imagine that Osama Bin Laden himself were captured — could America do any form of enhanced interrogation involving pain and/or deprivation to him that you would consider moral and therefore support?

4. If lawyers will be prosecuted for giving legal advice to an administration that you consider immoral and illegal, do you concede that this might inhibit lawyers in the future from giving unpopular but sincerely argued advice to the government in any sensitive area? They will, after all, know that if the next administration disapproves of their work, they will be vilified by the media and prosecuted by the government.

 5. Presumably you would acknowledge that the release of the classified reports on the handling of high-level, post-Sept. 11 terror suspects would inflame passions in many parts of the Muslim world. If innocents were murdered because nonviolent cartoons of Muhammad were published in a Danish newspaper, presumably far more innocents will be tortured and murdered with the release of these reports and photos. Do you accept any moral responsibility for any ensuing violence against American and other civilians?

6. Many members of the intelligence community now feel betrayed and believe that the intelligence community will be weakened in their ability to fight the most vicious organized groups in the world. As reported in the Washington Post, former intelligence officer “(Mark) Lowenthal said that fear has paralyzed agents on the ground. Apparently, many of those in the know are certain that life-saving information was gleaned from high level terror suspects who were waterboarded. As Mike Scheuer, former head of the CIA unit in charge of tracking Osama bin Laden, said, ”We were very certain that the interrogation procedures procured information that was worth having.” If, then, the intelligence community has been adversely affected, do you believe it can still do the work necessary to protect tens, perhaps hundreds, of thousands of people from death and maiming?

7. Will you seek to prosecute members of Congress such as House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., who were made aware of the waterboarding of high-level suspects and voiced no objections?

8. Would you agree to releasing the photos of the treatment of Islamic terrorists only if accompanied by photos of what their terror has done to thousands of innocent people around the world? Would you agree to photos — or at least photo re-enactments — of, let us say, Iraqi children whose faces were torn off with piano wire by Islamists in Iraq? If not, why not? Isn’t context of some significance here?

9. You say that America’s treatment of terror suspects will cause terrorists to treat their captives, especially Americans, more cruelly. On what grounds do you assert this? Did America’s far more moral treatment of Japanese prisoners than Japan’s treatment of American prisoners in World War II have any impact on how the Japanese treated American and other prisoners of war? Do you think that evil people care how morally pure America is?

If you do not address these questions, it would appear that you care less about morality and torture than about vengeance against the Bush administration.

Link: http://townhall.com/columnists/DennisPrager/2009/04/28/nine_questions_the_left_needs_to_answer_about_torture

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

U.S. Regulatory Czar Nominee Wants Net ‘Fairness Doctrine’: Wants to control us online

Posted on April 30, 2009. Filed under: 2nd Amendment Rights, Liberal Idiots, Nanny State, Obama, Politicians, Politics, Socialism/Communism |

Oh, give me a break!!!!! ARE YOU KIDDING ME??? Big brother is going to decide for me what I should and shouldn’t read because apparently I don’t have enough sense to decide for myself? And it’s going to decide if and when I should send an email?? This is too scary!!! You have GOT to read the article below because you won’t believe what he is proposing. Once again I say, “GOVERNMENT SHOULD BUTT OUT OF MY LIFE!! “

U.S. regulatory czar nominee wants Net ‘Fairness Doctrine’

Cass Sunstein sees Web as anti-democratic, proposed 24-hour delay on sending e-mail

Posted: April 27, 2009

© 2009 WorldNetDaily

WASHINGTON – Barack Obama’s nominee for “regulatory czar” has advocated a “Fairness Doctrine” for the Internet that would require opposing opinions be linked and also has suggested angry e-mails should be prevented from being sent by technology that would require a 24-hour cooling off period.

The revelations about Cass Sunstein, Obama’s friend from the University of Chicago Law School and nominee to head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, come in a new book by Brad O’Leary, “Shut Up, America! The End of Free Speech.” OIRA will oversee regulation throughout the U.S. government.

Sunstein also has argued in his prolific literary works that the Internet is anti-democratic because of the way users can filter out information of their own choosing.

“A system of limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government,” he wrote. “Democratic efforts to reduce the resulting problems ought not be rejected in freedom’s name.”

Sunstein first proposed the notion of imposing mandatory “electronic sidewalks” for the Net. These “sidewalks” would display links to opposing viewpoints. Adam Thierer, senior fellow and director of the Center for Digital Media Freedom at the Progress and Freedom Center, has characterized the proposal as “The Fairness Doctrine for the Internet.”

“Apparently in Sunstein’s world, people have many rights, but one of them, it seems, is not the right to be left alone or seek out the opinions one desires,” Thierer wrote.

Later, Sunstein rethought his proposal, explaining that it would be “too difficult to regulate [the Internet] in a way that would respond to those concerns.” He also acknowledged that it was “almost certainly unconstitutional.”

Perhaps Sunstein’s most novel idea regarding the Internet was his proposal, in his book “Nudge,” written with Richard Thaler, for a “Civility Check” for e-mails and other online communications.

“The modern world suffers from insufficient civility,” they wrote. “Every hour of every day, people send angry e-mails they soon regret, cursing people they barely know (or even worse, their friends and loved ones). A few of us have learned a simple rule: don’t send an angry e-mail in the heat of the moment. File it, and wait a day before you send it. (In fact, the next day you may have calmed down so much that you forget even to look at it. So much the better.) But many people either haven’t learned the rule or don’t always follow it. Technology could easily help. In fact, we have no doubt that technologically savvy types could design a helpful program by next month.”

That’s where the “Civility Check” comes in.

“We propose a Civility Check that can accurately tell whether the e-mail you’re about to send is angry and caution you, ‘warning: this appears to be an uncivil e-mail. do you really and truly want to send it?'” they wrote. “(Software already exists to detect foul language. What we are proposing is more subtle, because it is easy to send a really awful e-mail message that does not contain any four-letter words.) A stronger version, which people could choose or which might be the default, would say, ‘warning: this appears to be an uncivil e-mail. this will not be sent unless you ask to resend in 24 hours.’ With the stronger version, you might be able to bypass the delay with some work (by inputting, say, your Social Security number and your grandfather’s birth date, or maybe by solving some irritating math problem!).”

Sunstein’s nomination to the powerful new position will require Senate approval. He is almost certain to face other questions about his well-documented controversial views:

In a 2007 speech at Harvard he called for banning hunting in the U.S.

In his book “Radicals in Robes,” he wrote: “[A]lmost all gun control legislation is constitutionally fine. And if the Court is right, then fundamentalism does not justify the view that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms.”

In his 2004 book, “Animal Rights,” he wrote: “Animals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives …”

In “Animal Rights: A Very Short Primer,” he wrote “[T]here should be extensive regulation of the use of animals in entertainment, in scientific experiments, and in agriculture.”

The American Conservative Union is offering an opportunity for Americans to sound off on Sunstein’s agenda. The organization has created a website called Stop Sunstein through which readers can submit petition signatures to members of the U.S. Senate.

“As one of America’s leading constitutional scholars, Cass Sunstein has distinguished himself in a range of fields, including administrative law and policy, environmental law, and behavioral economics,” said Obama at his nomination of his regulatory czar. “He is uniquely qualified to lead my administration’s regulatory reform agenda at this crucial stage in our history. Cass is not only a valued adviser, he is a dear friend and I am proud to have him on my team.”

O’Leary disagrees.

“It’s hard to imagine President Obama nominating a more dangerous candidate for regulatory czar than Cass Sunstein,” he says. “Not only is Sunstein an animal-rights radical, but he also seems to have a serious problem with our First Amendment rights. Sunstein has advocated everything from regulating the content of personal e-mail communications, to forcing nonprofit groups to publish information on their websites that is counter to their beliefs and mission. Of course, none of this should be surprising from a man who has said that ‘limitless individual choices, with respect to communications, is not necessarily in the interest of citizenship and self-government.’ If it were up to Obama and Sunstein, everything we read online – right down to our personal e-mail communications – would have to be inspected and approved by the federal government.”

LINK: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=96301

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Obama’s Kindness to the Cruel

Posted on April 30, 2009. Filed under: Obama, Politicians, Terrorism |

Obama is kind to the cruel and cruel to the kind!! Enough said!! Is that what we want for a president??? NOT ME!

Obama’s Kindness to the Cruel

By Victor Sharpe

April 28, 2009

 There is an ancient saying best summarized as: “Those who are kind to the cruel in the end will be cruel to the kind.”

We saw this warning vividly and sorrowfully cast aside at the Summit of All Americas as President Obama smiled and warmly embraced the thug, Hugo Chavez, who sits astride Venezuela while its frail democracy dies by a “thousand cuts” under his growing dictatorship.

 Obama greeted Hugo Chavez 24 hours after the Venezuelan ruler said, “The United States Empire is on its way down and will be finished in the near future, inshallah!” The Arabic word Chavez uttered loosely means, “Allah wills it.”

 No doubt, Chavez has now morphed into an Islamist after his love fest with the Iranian racist and bigot of the day, Mahmoud Ahmedinijad. Indeed Iran has found a willing ally in Chavez.

 We have seen the ancient wisdom flouted as our president held hands with the Castro brothers while their political prisoners watched in mute torment from their Cuban jails. And even after Obama’s naïve outreach, Fidel Castro called President Obama, “superficial.”

We have seen this misplaced kindness in the endless prattle that President Obama dispenses to all and sundry as he preaches that America is no longer a super power imbued with an innate decency and morality: it is merely the equal of all other nations.

 Mr. President, is America now the equivalent of the Iranian theocracy, the Sudanese, Syrian and Saudi Arabian autocracies, the North Korean dictatorship, the basket cases of Zimbabwe and Somalia?

 According to President Obama, the United States of America has much to apologize to the world for; a theme he obsessively returns to on his foreign jaunts.

 While in Europe he shrugged off the pleas of French President Sarkozy to visit the WW II graves of some 12,500 American soldiers who died on the Normandy beaches because, “it might offend the Germans.”

 Perhaps he is not moved by the graves of American soldiers who died in their thousands to liberate Europe during two world wars and which dot that blood stained Continent’s landscape.

In the Obama vision, America is now merely the equal of every tin pot tyranny, dictatorship, oligarchy and Islamic theocracy in the world.

We can call this the new President’s twilight zone vision of America, or the Obama Moral Equivalency Nation, OMEN for short. And what a frightful and dire omen it portends for our future.

We have seen what the President does with our natural enemies; those who practice the worst human rights violations. He reaches out to them oblivious of the fact that these hard hearted monsters will play him like a skilled angler that has just reeled in a freshly caught fish.

 

His kindness to the assorted international thugs and gangsters from Iran to Cuba and from Syria to Venezuela may well kill the greatness that is America.

The memory of the American President bowing obsequiously to the Saudi King or listening in silence for nearly an hour while Daniel Ortega lectured him on all the perceived ills of the United States is one that is beyond demeaning. This is especially so when Obama not once stood up for America during the impudent harangue.

What are we to make of Obama’s attitude towards Iran when he makes humiliating overtures to the evil Ahmedinijad who plumbed new depths of squalor in his anti-Semitic ravings at the so-called UN Racism Conference in Geneva. Iran’s reply to Obama’s olive branch was to put an American woman journalist, Roxana Saberi, in jail on trumped up charges of espionage. This poor woman may well endure real torture and it remains to be seen if her plight moves our new president as much as his concern for the Islamist monsters in Guantanamo.

 The President has proven by his inactions that America under his leadership is humiliated and ridiculed, North Korea launches a missile while ignoring with contempt the empty warnings of President Obama and his Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton.

As President Barak Obama nears his hundred days in office, much has already changed in America as the President promised, but it is not for the good. Despite his Amen Chorus in the mainstream media, which sees no evil and hears no evil, the country is slowly awakening.

 There is an unease, which is becoming palpable. Tea Parties are a manifestation of this grassroots fear, which became evident in the streets of America. All this occurring while a Mad Hatter’s Tea Party continues apace in the Congress and the White House.

 Let us hope that cruelty, which always follows misplaced kindness, will not yet be meted out to the kind.

 And who are the kind?

 

LINK: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-goldberg28-2009apr28,0,5623626.column

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Obama’s Liberal Arrogance Will Be His Undoing

Posted on April 30, 2009. Filed under: Liberal Idiots, Obama, Politicians, Politics |

Do I really need to add any comments to this article?? I mean, really? It’s obvious that Obama is the MOST ARROGANT, SMUG, CONCEITED president that we’ve ever had and hopefully this article is correct and it WILL be his undoing!

Obama’s liberal arrogance will be his undoing

The hubris and overreaching of the left sets the stage for the political correction sure to come.

Jonah Goldberg

April 28, 2009

The most remarkable, or certainly the least remarked on, aspect of Barack Obama’s first 100 days has been the infectious arrogance of his presidency.

There’s no denying that this is liberalism’s greatest opportunity for wish fulfillment since at least 1964. But to listen to Democrats, the only check on their ambition is the limits of their imaginations.

“The world has changed,” Sen. Charles E. Schumer of New York proclaimed on MSNBC. “The old Reagan philosophy that served them well politically from 1980 to about 2004 and 2006 is over. But the hard right, which still believes … [in] traditional values kind of arguments and strong foreign policy, all that is over.”

Right. “Family values” and a “strong foreign policy” belong next to the “free silver” movement in the lexicon of dead political causes.

No doubt Schumer was employing the kind of simplified shorthand one uses when everyone in the room already agrees with you. He can be forgiven for mistaking an MSNBC studio for such a milieu, but it seemed not to dawn on him that anybody watching might see it differently.

When George W. Bush was in office, we heard constantly about the poisonous nature of American polarization. For example, Democratic pollster Stanley Greenberg came out with a book arguing that “our nation’s political landscape is now divided more deeply and more evenly than perhaps ever before.” One can charitably say this was abject nonsense. Evenly divided? Maybe. But more deeply? Feh.

During the Civil War, the political landscape was so deeply divided that 600,000 Americans died. During the 1930s, labor strife and revolutionary ardor threatened the stability of the republic. In the 1960s, political assassinations, riots and bombings punctuated our political discourse.

It says something about the relationship of liberals to political power that they can overlook domestic dissent when they’re at the wheel. When the GOP is in office, America is seen as hopelessly divided because dissent is the highest form of patriotism. When Democrats are in charge, the Frank Riches suddenly declare the culture war over and dismiss dissent as the scary work of the sort of cranks Obama’s Department of Homeland Security needs to monitor.

If liberals thought so fondly of social peace and consensus, they would look more favorably on the 1920s and 1950s. Instead, their political idylls are the tumultuous ’30s and ’60s, when liberalism, if not necessarily liberals, rode high in the saddle.

Sure, America was divided under Bush. And it’s still divided under Obama (just look at the recent Minnesota Senate race and the New York congressional special election). According to the polls, America is a bit less divided under Obama than it was at the end of Bush’s 100 days. But not as much less as you would expect, given Obama’s victory margin and the rally-around-the-president effect of the financial crisis (not to mention the disarray of the GOP).

Meanwhile, circulation for the conservative National Review (where I work) is soaring. More people watch Fox News (where I am a contributor) in prime time than watch CNN and MSNBC combined. The “tea parties” may not have been as big as your typical union-organized “spontaneous” demonstration, but they were far more significant than any protests this early in Bush’s tenure.

And yet, according to Democrats and liberal pundits, America is enjoying unprecedented unity, and conservatives are going the way of the dodo.

Obama has surely helped set the tone for the unfolding riot of liberal hubris. In his effort to reprise the sort of expansion of liberal power we saw in the ’30s and ’60s, Obama has — without a whiff of self-doubt — committed America to $6.5 trillion in extra debt, $65 billion for each one of his first 100 days, and that’s based on an impossibly rosy forecast of the economy. No wonder congressional Democrats clamor to take over corporations, tax the air we breathe and set wages for everybody.

On social issues such as abortion and embryonic stem cell research, Obama has proved to be, if anything, more of a left-wing culture warrior than Bush was a right-wing one. All the while, Obama transmogrifies his principled opponents into straw-man ideologues while preening about his own humble pragmatism. For him, bipartisanship is defined as shutting up and getting in line.

I’m not arguing that conservatives are poised to make some miraculous comeback. They’re not. But American politics didn’t come to an end with Obama’s election, and nothing in politics breeds corrective antibodies more quickly than overreaching arrogance. And by that measure, Obama’s first 100 days have been a huge down payment on the inevitable correction to come.

 

LINK: http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-goldberg28-2009apr28,0,5623626.column

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Barack’s in the Basement: He’s Less Popular than Nixon and Carter

Posted on April 30, 2009. Filed under: Media Bias, Obama, Politics |

Huh…imagine that…the mainstream media is spinning their coverage of Obama’s popularity.Thanks to their bias, most people don’t realize that Obama is the second-LEAST-POPULAR president in 40 years. To listen to them you would think he is the most popular and everyone loves him. Gag!

Barack’s in the basement

Obama is less popular than Nixon and Carter

By THE WASHINGTON TIMES | Tuesday, April 28, 2009

President Obama’s media cheerleaders are hailing how loved he is. But at the 100-day mark of his presidency, Mr. Obama is the second-least-popular president in 40 years.

According to Gallup’s April survey, Americans have a lower approval of Mr. Obama at this point than all but one president since Gallup began tracking this in 1969. The only new president less popular was Bill Clinton, who got off to a notoriously bad start after trying to force homosexuals on the military and a federal raid in Waco, Texas, that killed 86. Mr. Obama’s current approval rating of 56 percent is only one tick higher than the 55-percent approval Mr. Clinton had during those crises.

As the attached chart shows, five presidents rated higher than Mr. Obama after 100 days in office. Ronald Reagan topped the charts in April 1981 with 67 percent approval. Following the Gipper, in order of popularity, were: Jimmy Carter with 63 percent in 1977; George W. Bush with 62 percent in 2001; Richard Nixon with 61 percent in 1969; and George H.W. Bush with 58 percent in 1989.

It’s no surprise the liberal media aren’t anxious to point out that their darling is less popular than George W. Bush. But given the Gallup numbers, their hurrahs could be more subdued. USA Today’s front page touted the April poll results as positive, with the headline: “Public thinks highly of Obama.” The current cover of Newsweek magazine ponders “The Secret of His [Mr. Obama’s] Success.” The comparison with previous presidents is useful because they are usually popular during their first few months in office – and most presidents have been more popular than Mr. Obama.

 

The explanation for Mr. Obama’s low approval is that he ran as a moderate but has governed from the far left. The fawning and self-deceiving press won’t go there. On Sunday’s “Meet the Press,” host David Gregory asked a panel about critics who “would say one of the things that he’s done in 100 days already is expand the role of government, the size of government.” Historian Doris Kearns Goodwin claimed, “That’s what he ran for the presidency in the first place for.”

Perplexed about complaints over Mr. Obama’s expansion of government, Newsweek editor Jon Meacham asked: “does no one listen during campaigns?”

It was these pundits who weren’t paying attention during last year’s campaign. In all three presidential debates, Mr. Obama promised to cut government spending and reduce the size of the deficit. He blamed the economic crisis on excessive deficits. At no time did candidate Barack Obama say that more deficit-spending was the solution.

Mr. Obama’s popularity after 100 days is the second-lowest for a simple reason: He is more partisan and divisive than his predecessors – including Richard Nixon.

 LINK: http://washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/28/baracks-in-the-basement/

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Article from the UK: Why does President Pantywaist Hate America so Badly?

Posted on April 24, 2009. Filed under: Obama, Politics, Terrorism |

AMEN to this article!! Even this Brit can see Obama’s dislike of his own country!! Once again I repeat, IMPEACH OBAMA!!!

Barack Obama and the CIA: why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly?
Posted By: Gerald Warner at Apr 24, 2009

UK TELEGRAPH

If al-Qaeda, the Taliban and the rest of the Looney Tunes brigade want to kick America to death, they had better move in quickly and grab a piece of the action before Barack Obama finishes the job himself. Never in the history of the United States has a president worked so actively against the interests of his own people – not even Jimmy Carter.

Obama’s problem is that he does not know who the enemy is. To him, the enemy does not squat in caves in Waziristan, clutching automatic weapons and reciting the more militant verses from the Koran: instead, it sits around at tea parties in Kentucky quoting from the US Constitution. Obama is not at war with terrorists, but with his Republican fellow citizens. He has never abandoned the campaign trail.

That is why he opened Pandora’s Box by publishing the Justice Department’s legal opinions on waterboarding and other hardline interrogation techniques. He cynically subordinated the national interest to his partisan desire to embarrass the Republicans. Then he had to rush to Langley, Virginia to try to reassure a demoralised CIA that had just discovered the President of the United States was an even more formidable foe than al-Qaeda.

“Don’t be discouraged by what’s happened the last few weeks,” he told intelligence officers. Is he kidding? Thanks to him, al-Qaeda knows the private interrogation techniques available to the US intelligence agencies and can train its operatives to withstand them – or would do so, if they had not already been outlawed.

So, next time a senior al-Qaeda hood is captured, all the CIA can do is ask him nicely if he would care to reveal when a major population centre is due to be hit by a terror spectacular, or which American city is about to be irradiated by a dirty bomb. Your view of this situation will be dictated by one simple criterion: whether or not you watched the people jumping from the twin towers.

Obama promised his CIA audience that nobody would be prosecuted for past actions. That has already been contradicted by leftist groups with a revanchist ambition to put Republicans, headed if possible by Condoleezza Rice, in the dock. Talk about playing party politics with national security. Martin Scheinin, the United Nations special investigator for human rights, claims that senior figures, including former vice president Dick Cheney, could face prosecution overseas. Ponder that – once you have got over the difficulty of locating the United Nations and human rights within the same dimension.

President Pantywaist Obama should have thought twice before sitting down to play poker with Dick Cheney. The former vice president believes documents have been selectively published and that releasing more will prove how effective the interrogation techniques were. Under Dubya’s administration, there was no further atrocity on American soil after 9/11.

President Pantywaist’s recent world tour, cosying up to all the bad guys, excited the ambitions of America’s enemies. Here, they realised, is a sucker they can really take to the cleaners. His only enemies are fellow Americans. Which prompts the question: why does President Pantywaist hate America so badly?
http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/gerald_warner…merica_so_badly

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 1 so far )

Obama Crosses the Line: Open to Prosecution of Bush Officials

Posted on April 24, 2009. Filed under: Liberal Idiots, Nanny State, Obama, Obama Corruption, Politics, Socialism/Communism, Terrorism |

Obama is going way outside the boundaries of his powers, and sadly, we are letting him!! No president in the past has ever had so much gall and audacity as to punish the previous president for policies they don’t agree on. I think people just assume that a president will have the class to do what is right, especially with the world watching, but Obama has proven HE WILL DO WHATEVER HE WANTS TO DO! He doesn’t care if it’s wrong, against the constitution, un-classy, outside the boundaries, or anything else, he just does what he wants. This is setting a terrible precedent that could ruin this country and the lives of people who were serving in the administration. It will also hinder folks from doing their jobs correctly in the future, for fear they will be prosecuted for it later. It’s just like our military cannot do their jobs properly when they have to worry constantly that they will be tried for murder or crucified in the media. Apparently Obama thinks he’s a KING and can’t be bothered with our pesky constitution and rules.

Steady descent into third world

By Wesley Pruden Friday, April 24, 2009

Opening a can of worms always tempts a mischief-maker, but it’s risky business. That can of worms might turn out to be a can of snakes, like Barack Obama’s latest gift to the nation.

The president’s on-again, off-again, maybe-he-will and maybe-he-won’t decision to punish someone who loosened tongues of Islamist terrorists at Guantanamo suddenly threatens not only the CIA interrogators and Justice Department lawyers, but even members of Congress. Maybe it won’t stop there: if the lawyers who offered legal opinions are at risk of punishment for their legal advice, why not the members of Congress who knew what was going on? Why not the secretaries who typed up the transcripts? Why not the interns who fetched the coffee? All were accessories either before or after the fact.

We’re on unfamiliar ground now. No president before has sought to punish his predecessor for policy decisions, no matter how wrong or wrong-headed. Lyndon B. Johnson’s management of the Vietnam War was often ham-handed, as anyone who was there could tell you, and his policy makers sometimes verged on criminal incompetence. But Richard Nixon was never tempted to send LBJ or any of those presidential acolytes to prison. Abraham Lincoln, by his lights, would have had ample opportunity to hang Jefferson Davis and Robert E. Lee, but even the rabid Republicans who survived the assassination stopped short of putting Davis in the dock, finally releasing him from imprisonment at Fort Monroe when judgment overcame lust for revenge. Lee was never touched.

Exacting revenge for unpopular policies is the norm in the third world, heretofore more likely in Barack Obama’s ancestral Kenya than in America, more in the tradition of gangland Chicago than in Washington, where we count on cooler heads to prevail when raw emotion threatens to overwhelm sobriety and the undisciplined senses. We recall perceived national mistakes with the sadness of regret and even gratitude for lessons learned, not the frenzied catharsis of a St. Valentine’s Day Massacre. Mr. Obama, having won the White House fair and square, is entitled to change any presidential policy he chooses, but the vindication of a national election does not entitle any president to exact mindless revenge.

The loquacious prince of Hyde Park should understand this, having eloquently sounded caution and reason on his inauguration as president, promising as he had during the long campaign to “look forward,” not “backward.” Rahm Emanuel, once described as the president’s alter ego (if indeed such an outsized ego could have an “alter”), said as recently as Sunday that “it’s not a time to use our energy and our time in looking back in any sense of anger and retribution.”

This was in line with what the president had said all last summer when he was campaigning for the White House, what he had said on his inauguration, and in line with his oft-stated goal of restoring bipartisan civility and mutual goodwill to governing the country. Mr. Emanuel’s reassurance was regarded in Washington as putting paid to an ugly era, an emphatic determination to “move on” to something close to national unity.

The president hadn’t counted on the rage of the jackals on the leftmost fringe of his party, organizations like MoveOn.org, which want only the “unity” of the lynch mob. They demand a hanging and the president promises only to think about it. Ever confident that his golden tongue, with or without the teleprompter, would mesmerize all foes and vanquish all rancor, Mr. Obama then threw George W. Bush’s lawyers to the mob.

Perhaps the president imagines that nobody cares much about what happens to lawyers, but he has set in motion something neither he nor anyone else can control. Some of the Democrats in Congress, eager now to join the mob, will regret what they cry for. Rep. Nancy Pelosi, for one, was a member of the House intelligence committee and sat in on super-secret briefings after Sept. 11. She concedes that she heard about waterboarding but she doesn’t remember exactly what she heard. Just like Barack Obama sleeping through 20 years of the Rev. Jeremiah Wright’s rabid sermons, Ms. Pelosi dozed through the briefings. Her colleagues on the intelligence panel say they remember her demanding that the CIA do more to get the “intelligence” to prevent another attack.

Republicans in the Senate, including John McCain and Lindsey Graham, are finally finding their voices. So is Joe Lieberman, a courageous Democrat. If we’re going to have hangings, Ms. Pelosi may be at risk of becoming our most famous female hangee since Mary Surratt paid her debt at the end of a rope for hanging out with John Wilkes Booth.

Stomping on snakes is never pretty.

• Wesley Pruden is editor emeritus of The Washington Times.

LINK: http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/apr/24/the-steady-descent-into-the-third-world/

 

Obama open to prosecution, probe of interrogations
By JENNIFER LOVEN, AP White House Correspondent Jennifer Loven, Ap White House Correspondent – Tue Apr 21

WASHINGTON – President Barack Obama left the door open Tuesday to prosecuting Bush administration officials who devised the legal authority for gruesome terror-suspect interrogations, saying the United States lost “our moral bearings” with use of the tactics.

The question of whether to bring charges against those who devised justification for the methods “is going to be more of a decision for the attorney general within the parameters of various laws and I don’t want to prejudge that,” Obama said. The president discussed the continuing issue of terrorism-era interrogation tactics with reporters as he finished an Oval Office meeting with visiting King Abdullah II of Jordan.

Obama also said he could support a congressional investigation into the Bush-era terrorist detainee program, but only under certain conditions, such as if it were done on a bipartisan basis. He said he worries about the impact that high-intensity, politicized hearings in Congress could have on the government’s efforts to cope with terrorism.

The president had said earlier that he didn’t want to see prosecutions of the CIA agents and interrogators who took part in waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics, so long as they acted within parameters spelled out by government superiors who held that such practices were legal at the time.

But the administration’s stance on Bush administration lawyers who actually wrote the memos approving these tactics has been less clear and Obama declined to make it so. “There are a host of very complicated issues involved,” Obama said.

White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel said in a television interview over the weekend that the administration does not support prosecutions for “those who devised policy.” Later, White House aides said that he was referring to CIA superiors who ordered the interrogations, not the Justice Department officials who wrote the legal memos allowing them.

The president took a question on the volatile subject for the first time since he ordered the Justice Department to release top-secret Bush-era memos that gave the government’s first full accounting of the CIA’s use of waterboarding – a form of simulated drowning – and other harsh methods criticized as torture. The previously classified memos were released Thursday, over the objections of many in the intelligence community. CIA Director Leon Panetta had pressed for heavier censorship when they were released, but the memos were put out with only light redactions.

Far from putting the matter in the past, the move has resulted in Obama being buffeted by increased pressure from both sides.

Republican lawmakers and former CIA chiefs have criticized Obama’s decision, contending that revealing the limits of interrogation techniques will hamper the effectiveness of interrogators and critical U.S. relationships with foreign intelligence services.

The release also has appeared to intensify calls for further investigations of the Bush-era terrorist treatment program and for prosecutions of those responsible for any techniques that crossed the line into torture.

Obama banned all such techniques days after taking office. But members of Congress have continued to seek the release of information about the early stages of the U.S. response to the Sept. 11, 2001, terror under former President George W. Bush. Lawsuits have been brought, seeking the same information.

Obama said an investigation might be acceptable “outside of the typical hearing process” and with the participation of “independent participants who are above reproach.” This, he said, could help ensure that any investigation would be a tool to learn, not to provide partisan advantage to one side or another.

“That would probably be a more sensible approach to take,” Obama said. “I’m not saying that it should be done, I’m saying that if you’ve got a choice.”

The president made clear that his preference would be not to revisit the era extensively.

“As a general view, I do think we should be looking forward, not back,” Obama said. “I do worry about this getting so politicized that we cannot function effectively and it hampers our ability to carry out critical national security operations.”

LINK: http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090421/ap_on_go_pr_wh/obama_interrogation_memos

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( 2 so far )

WARNING! Socialized Medicine May be Coming Quicker than We Think

Posted on April 24, 2009. Filed under: Healthcare, Obama, Socialism/Communism |

WARNING!! WARNING!! WARNING!! We cannot let this happen! Please read all of my earlier posts to find out why nationalized healthcare is a VERY BAD IDEA!!!! It is very dangerous and scary!
Democrats Move Closer to ‘Fast Track’ for Obama Health Care Plan

 

By a 227-196 vote, the House affirmed Democrats’ plans to move health care legislation under rules that block Republicans in the Senate from being able to slow — or even stop — it from proceeding.
FOXNews.com   Wednesday, April 22, 2009

WASHINGTON — Democrats moved one step closer Wednesday to using a controversial budget procedure to speed passage of President Obama’s health care legislation.

House Democrats went on record again in favor of advancing the legislation while allowing only limited debate, which would hobble the ability of Republicans to wrest concessions on one of Obama’s top domestic priorities.

By a 227-196 vote, the House affirmed Democrats’ plans to move health care legislation under rules that block Republicans in the Senate from being able to slow progress of the legislation — or even stop it, through a filibuster.

The vote came as senior House and Senate Democrats negotiated the issue in private talks on the 2010 budget. Republicans are passionately against the idea of putting health care on a “fast track,” saying it is too important and too complicated to be rushed through Congress under rules permitting just 20 hours of Senate debate.

But the White House is insisting on having the fast-track process — known as “reconciliation” under the arcane rules governing the congressional budget process — available to them, though it claims a preference is for a bipartisan measure.

As a practical matter, passing health care measures under fast-track procedures would give Democrats far more control over the details of the legislation. It would reduce the influence of not only Republicans but also conservative Senate Democrats.

But it also would provoke howls of outrage from Republicans claiming that filibuster-proof reconciliation legislation is not intended to be used to pass sweeping measures such as Obama’s health care overhaul, which they argue would drastically increase the size of government and the taxes needed to pay for it. It likely would mean that Republicans would abandon the health care effort and engage in scorched-earth tactics against it.

Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., warned that Democrats were preparing to use fast-track legislation “to jam through a government takeover of health care.”

Republicans have a sympathetic ear among influential Senate Democrats like Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus of Montana and Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad of North Dakota.

But Democrats say the Republican outrage is misplaced given the GOP’s use of fast-track procedures to pass President George W. Bush’s 2001 and 2003 tax cut bills.

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

LINK: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/22/democrats-want-speedy-health-care-debate/

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

Liberal Student Infiltrates Liberty University to Write Expose: Didn’t find what he Expected

Posted on April 24, 2009. Filed under: Conservatives, Religion |

This is priceless!!! And I’m proud to say my daughter will be attending Liberty next year!!

Liberal Student Infiltrates Liberty University to Write Expose

This is just too funny! A liberal Ivy League student decides to enroll at Jerry Falwell’s Liberty University in Virgina and write a book exposé (The Unlikely Disciple: A Sinner’s Semester at America’s Holiest University) supposedly showing the intolerance that must be there, or so he thought. The liberal student, however, was surprised to find little of the expected intolerance but is now finding plenty of it from the left because his book was not an outright condemnation of Liberty University nor of Jerry Falwell whom he met during his semester there. An AP story by Eric Tucker sets the scene:

PROVIDENCE, R.I. – Kevin Roose managed to blend in during his single semester at Liberty University, attending lectures on the myth of evolution and the sin of homosexuality, and joining fellow students on a mission trip to evangelize partyers on spring break.

Roose had transferred to the Virginia campus from Brown University in Providence, a famously liberal member of the Ivy League. His Liberty classmates knew about the switch, but he kept something more important hidden: He planned to write a book about his experience at the school founded by fundamentalist preacher Jerry Falwell.

Roose explains the reason for his infiltration:

“As a responsible American citizen, I couldn’t just ignore the fact that there are a lot of Christian college students out there,” said Roose, 21, now a Brown senior. “If I wanted my education to be well-rounded, I had to branch out and include these people that I just really had no exposure to.”

We have to give Roose credit here. Unlike most liberals, he actually opened himself up to contrary ideas. Something his parents found hard to understand:

Roose’s parents, liberal Quakers who once worked for Ralph Nader, were nervous about their son being exposed to Falwell’s views. Still, Roose transferred to Liberty for the spring 2007 semester.

He was determined to not mock the school, thinking it would be too easy _ and unfair. He aimed to immerse himself in the culture, examine what conservative Christians believe and see if he could find some common ground. He had less weighty questions too: How did they spend Friday nights? Did they use Facebook? Did they go on dates? Did they watch “Gossip Girl?”

Did they Twitter? Did they use electricity? Did they eat with utensils?

He lined up a publisher _ Grand Central Publishing _ and arrived at the Lynchburg campus prepared for “hostile ideologues who spent all their time plotting abortion clinic protests and sewing Hillary Clinton voodoo dolls.”

Instead, he found that “not only are they not that, but they’re rigorously normal.”

GASP! But how can that be? Haven’t all good liberals been taught that Liberty University students are a bunch of ignorant hateful yahoos foaming at the mouth? Kevin Roose appeared to have strayed dangerously from the Party Line.

He met students who use Bible class to score dates, apply to top law schools and fret about their futures, and who enjoy gossip, hip-hop and R-rated movies _ albeit in a locked dorm room.

Stop! You’re making the LU students sound too normal!

A roommate he depicts as aggressively anti-gay _ all names are changed in the book _ is an outcast on the hall, not a role model.

But…but where’s all the hate?

Roose researched the school by joining as many activites as possible. He accompanied classmates on a spring break missionary trip to Daytona Beach. He visited a campus support group for chronic masturbators, where students were taught to curb impure thoughts. And he joined the choir at Falwell’s Thomas Road Baptist Church.

Roose scored an interview with the preacher for the school newspaper, right before Falwell died in May of that year. Roose decided against confronting him over his views on liberals, gays and other hot-button topics, and instead learned about the man himself, discovering among other things that the pastor loved diet peach Snapple and the TV show “24.”

You mean Falwell wasn’t consumed with hate 24/7 as all good liberals “know” as absolute fact?

And now something that will really disturb the “tolerant” liberals:

Once ambivalent about faith, Roose now prays to God regularly _ for his own well-being and on behalf of others. He said he owns several translations of the Bible and has recently been rereading meditations from the letters of John on using love and compassion to solve cultural conflicts.

He’s even considering joining a church.

This latter must be very upsetting to liberals including his own parents. Sonny Boy! Where did we go wrong? To see just how upset the liberals are over this book, just read a few examples of intolerace in the Huffington Post comments section:

Wow, that must be a pretty good brainwashing program they’ve got there. That or this guy is weak sauce. You wouldn’t catch me praying to some magic sky daddy if I spent a THOUSAND years at Liberty “University.”

He should have gone to a deprogrammer to complete the experience.

I wish he’d done an MRI before and after. It appears he’s been brainwashed. Long periods of time with cults will do that.

I’m a little worried about Kevin’s soul now that he’s been programmed. He seems strong and intelligent though, so there’s still hope for him. I’ll be praying for his salvation from the radical right.

I hope he’s been debriefed and re-socialized into the real world. Never visit the darkside.

So it turns out that Kevin Roose did discover intolerance due to spending a semester at Liberty University and, as we can see from these comments, it is now coming from the left.

Welcome to the Brave New World of ironic reality, Kevin.

LINK: http://newsbusters.org/blogs/p-j-gladnick/2009/04/22/liberal-student-infiltrates-liberty-university-write-expos-discovers-i

Read Full Post | Make a Comment ( None so far )

« Previous Entries

Liked it here?
Why not try sites on the blogroll...