It's Hemmer Time

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BISLNUzO1BQ

 Does anyone really believe Queen Nancy is telling the truth?  Even many Democrats are distancing themselves from her.  Pelosi should have taken a few lessons from Bill Clinton on the art of lying.  She isn't doing too well on her own. 

Imagine, this woman is third in line to become President of the United States.  Scary thought.  (Although Joe Biden, as second-in-command is even more frightening.)

If Nancy Pelosi were a Republican, she would have been forced to step down as Speaker of the House by now.  As we all know, Republicans are held to a much higher standard of behavior and conduct than Democrats.  The media tends to ignore many reprehensible acts by liberal politicians, but delights in reporting (over and over) on any improprieties by Republicans.  In addition, we currently have a President who doesn't have enough guts to confront Pelosi and demand she resign.  After all, who would Obama turn to for guidance?  Harry Reid, George Soros, and moveon.org  may suffice for awhile, but Nancy Pelosi is the one Obama really takes orders from.  He'd be lost without her.  The Democrats in Congress and the Senate control everything and will do all they can to protect her - right or wrong, simply because she is a Democrat. 

Look what the election of 2008 got us.  A President who doesn't know what he is doing. A Vice-President who is kept hidden away due to his ability to embarrass the Obama administration every time he opens his mouth.  And now the Speaker of the House saying the CIA lied to her - and her alone - about enhanced interrogation techniques.  How embarrassing.  How low our country has sunk in just a few short months.  Pelosi should have the decency to step down. Unfortunately, as we have seen time and time again, Democrats seem to believe they can do no wrong.  Mrs. Pelosi will not go gently into that dark night...

even though it is the right thing to do for America. 

Several years ago, while President Bush was still in office, Senator John Kerry made the following statement:

"I actually did vote for the $87 billion, before I voted against it."  - John Kerry, 3/16/04 (while speaking at Marshall University, referring to his voting record on supplemental appropriations for military operations in Iraq).

Kerry's comment brought new meaning to the term "flip-flop."  His words came back to haunt him and contributed to Kerry's unraveling during the 2004 presidential election.

Inconsistency, or "flip-flopping," is not a very admirable quality.  Yet, President Obama has surpassed John Kerry and has cornered the market on flip-flops.

First Obama vowed to end military tribunals while on the campaign trail.  And he did once elected President.   Now Obama is bringing military tribunals back.

First the Obama administration insisted there would be no prosecutions of the Bush administration lawyers who did little more than give advice on enhanced interrogation techniques.  Then Obama decided to support such prosecutions.  Later, he changed his mind. 

First Obama promised to change the Bush policy in regards to Iraq.  Now Obama's policy is an exact replica of President Bush's.

First Obama was enthusiastic about complying with the wishes of the ACLU to release detainee abuse photos to the public.  After a few weeks, he changed his mind.  Now he is against the release of such photos.

What can the American people learn about President Obama from his decisions (or lack of decisiveness)?  For one thing, Obama is clearly inexperienced.  "Amateur Hour" has come to the White House.    Obama makes quick decisions based on his leftist ideology, without thoroughly thinking solutions through.  Witness how quick Obama was to sign papers instructing Club Gitmo to be shut down.  Now the Obama administration finds itself in a quagmire (love that word!).  What to do with murderous terrorist prisoners that want to kill Americans?  Where should they go?  Well, that's the Democrats problem now.   The Democrats found it to be much easier during the Bush years to be the party of obstruction and complaints.  They are finding it much more difficult to lead and assume responsibility for their actions.

Concerning Obama's latest flip-flop on deciding not to release the photos of detainee abuse, it is easy to conclude that Obama did this more out of personal interest than concerns for national security.  Obama didn't want to see his popularity decline, as it surely would, were he to open up the United States military to an even greater threat from terrorists due to the photos.  Even though the military experts and other politicians were quick to point out to Obama the dangers of releasing the photos (which a child could probably figure out), it took Obama several weeks to do an about-face.  Even after Obama was told over and over that releasing such pictures would further endanger our troops, Obama's knee-jerk reaction was to placate the ACLU. 

At least Obama did eventually make the right decision, even if it is self-serving.  It is just unfortunate that the American people have a very "green" leader (no offense to all you tree huggers out there).  No experience equates to stupidity in many cases.  How long a learning curve are the Obama supporters of the United States going to give the President before they say "enough?"  Obama's mistakes are very damaging - and dangerous -  to our national security.  Our own president has succeeded in making our military men and women afraid to do their jobs.  Afraid to question terrorist suspects.  Many fear prosecutions by U.S. lawyers once they return to America.  It is despicable that our own soldiers have to worry about being put on trial by their own country for doing their jobs and protecting American lives!  And the President of the United States has set such attitudes in motion.

In addition, President Obama seems hell bent on apologizing to anyone or any country that will listen for all the ills of America.  For it's perceived wrongs.  Obama likes to wallow in the supposed "badness" of our country, ignoring the greatness.  This viewpoint helps to contribute to Obama's poor decision-making process.  As we have witnessed several times now, Obama's first instinct in addressing issues and problems always seem to be wrong.  Obama's initial decisions always seem to benefit our enemies.  Sure, show the detainee pictures!  Sure, free the enemy from Club Gitmo!  Sure, prosecute lawyers who made recommendations concerning enhanced interrogation techniques!  Sure, tell the enemy all about our withdrawal plans from Iraq! 

Obama seems to believe that by demonstrating to the world that America is awful, our enemies will forgive us.  They will realize how great we are because we are humble.  President Obama needs to wake up from his liberal pipe dream.  The world doesn't work that way.  Our enemies will only see us as weak and vulnerable.  And if President Obama continues to provide erratic leadership when America needs a strong, unwavering commander-in-chief, our enemies will be right.

This past weekend, the White House hosted the annual Correspondents' Association Dinner.   As part of the entertainment, comedienne Wanda Sykes had some really nice things to say about conservative talk show host Rush Limbaugh: 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r2N7Bu4fJ_4

Ms. Sykes was just too funny!  Suggesting that Limbaugh was a drug-addicted terrorist who missed out on 9/11!  Ha ha ha!  She went even further to say that because Limbaugh hopes Obama's socialist policies fail, Limbaugh is committing treason and that Obama should have him waterboarded!  Oh, my sides are just splitting....hilarious!  And last of all, she topped off her routine wishing that Limbaugh's kidneys' fail!  Wow!  Let me wipe the tears from my eyes... I may be hyperventilating...Sykes wants Limbaugh to die....how laughable!  That Ms. Sykes -  what a hoot!  Ha ha ha....

Oh, those compassionate, caring liberals!  And Ms. Sykes has shown that they even have a brilliant sense of humor!  Thanks, Ms. Sykes - for proving that liberal comics can say anything and it doesn't matter!  There are no lines to be crossed, because everything is fair game - as long as you are a liberal!  And the President of the United States loved it -  chuckling and smiling at Sykes supposed "jokes."   When his nose wasn't sticking up in the air, Obama was giggling and looking like a bobble-head... guffawing with the people sitting next to him...   Remember, this is the same President that promised a new era of civility in Washington DC. with his election. 

From Michelle Malkin (April 22, 2009) writing for the Town Hall:  "They told us if Barack Obama were elected, the nation would come together. Souls would be fixed. Spirits would be healed. Public discourse would be elevated. Welcome to civility and tolerance in the Age of Obama."  Wow - maybe Ms. Malkin had a premonition of the hatred that is allowed to pass as "humor" at the White House Correspondent's Association Dinner!  (By the way, Ms. Malkin was actually referring to how the media and liberals trashed Ms.California several weeks ago at the  Miss USA pageant.  Ms. California had the audacity to say she believed that marriage was between a man and a woman....   Although Ms. Malkins words are very appropriate for the Wanda Sykes venom-filled spiel, too.)

Wonder how Ann Coulter would have been treated had she borrowed Ms.Sykes comic routine and used Obama as the target of her jokes?

Simple fact.  The United States subjects certain personnel in the military to waterboarding.  The point of doing so is to prepare our fighting men and women to what may happen to them if they are captured by the enemy.  For what may happen to them if they are on a military plane that goes down in water.  Waterboarding has been used as a training tool on thousands of American soldiers for years.

Now, real torture is actually cutting off fingers, pulling out fingernails, slicing throats on television, burning people with cigarette butts, breaking bones, or other heinous acts that could eventually lead to death.  Does the United States subject ANY captured enemies to such acts?  No.  Does the United States subject any of it's own military personnel to such things in an effort to prepare them for what the enemy might actually do?  No.  That is REAL torture.  Pain and suffering to the point of death or actual death itself.

  Waterboarding does not kill.  Sure, it's uncomfortable.  But as defined by our own government, waterboarding is an "enhanced interrogation technique."  Waterboarding makes people uncomfortable - for a brief period of time. Waterboarding simulates drowning.  Waterboarding is a very useful interrogation tool and has succeeded in getting valuable information and intelligence out of al-quaeda operatives that have saved American lives.

As for the left always bemoaning "we are no better than the enemy if we waterboard!"  Oh really.  Just because a policeman carries a gun and a criminal carries a gun, does that mean the policeman is no better than the criminal?  No.  The policeman stands for law and order. He is protecting society.  Just as the United States military stands for protecting the United States.  We do not go running around the globe, intent on waterboarding people just for the sake of waterboarding.  Waterboarding has been used in very few selective cases and only for good reasons.  Like it or not, libs, your "ethical" argument doesn't hold water (no pun intended).

So put it to rest.

Ann Coulter made an excellent point on Fox News the other night.  Ms. Coulter said that if terrorists were partially-aborted at birth, (the live baby is delivered except for the head, then a scissors is shoved in the skull, and the brain is suctioned out for easy extraction)  the left would have no problem with that.  But pour a bit of water on the terrorists heads to save American lives, and liberals goes ballistic. 

Doesn't make much sense, does it?  Then again, there is very little about liberalism that makes any sense.

Whodathunkit?

Several days ago, prior to the running of the Kentucky Derby on May 2nd, conservative radio talk show host Mark Belling (WISN) made an on-air bet on the race.  Belling said that if the long shot, "Mine That Bird" (at odds of 50-1) were to win, Belling would vote for Governor Doyle in 2010.  Belling specifically stated "If this horse wins, I'll never bet on another horse race and will vote for Jim Doyle for re-election."

Guess what?  "Mine That Bird" won.

Now Belling has not really backed down from his bet, but he has added a disclaimer.  Belling now says that he will indeed vote for Doyle ONLY if Doyle withdraws his support for the numerous tax increases that Doyle has pushed through.  You know, the tax increases that Doyle approved AFTER promising in 2003 while campaigning for re-election: 

 "Going forward my mind will be open to every solution except one.  We should not, we must not, and I will not raise taxes.  Wisconsin's problem is not that we tax too little, it's that we spend too much."   -  Governor Jim Doyle (2003)

Since that time, Wisconsin has seen numerous fees and tax increases every year.  Here is just a list from State Senator Ted Kanavas showing Doyle's' recent tax increases from last month alone:

April 30, 2009: Day 30: The Property Tax
April 29, 2009: Day 29: The Medical Records Tax
April 28, 2009: Day 28: The Child Care Tax
April 27, 2009: Day 27: The Birth Certificate Tax
April 26, 2009: Day 26: The Driver Record Tax
April 25, 2009: Day 25: The Phone Tax II
April 24, 2009: Day 24: The Air Emissions Tax
April 23, 2009: Day 23: The Boat Registration Tax
April 22, 2009: Day 22: The Vehicle Environmental Impact Tax
April 21, 2009: Day 21: The Hunting Tax
April 20, 2009: Day 20: The Gas Tax
April 19, 2009: Day 19: The Great Lakes Water Compact Tax
April 18, 2009: Day 18: The Assisted Living Facilities Tax
April 17, 2009: Day 17: The Investment Tax
April 16, 2009: Day 16: The Garbage Tax
April 15, 2009: Day 15: Right to Keep and Bear Arms Tax
April 14, 2009: Day 14: New Upper Tax Bracket
April 13, 2009: Day 13: The Hospital Tax
April 12, 2009: Day 12: Easter Sunday, No Release
April 11, 2009: Day 11: Vital Records Tax
April 10, 2009: Day 10: BadgerCare Plus Tax
April  9, 2009: Day 9: UW Tuition Increase
April  8, 2009: Day 8: The Capital Gains Tax
April  7, 2009: Day 7: The Work Permit Tax
April  6, 2009: Day 6: The Tailgate Tax
April  5, 2009: Day 5: The Seed License Tax
April  4, 2009: Day 4: The Justice Information Tax
April  3, 2009: Day 3: The Cigarette Tax
April  2, 2009: Day 2: The Phone Tax
April  1, 2009: Day 1: The Nursing Home Bed Tax

So, Governor Jim Doyle lied.  Meanwhile, the crickets in the Milwaukee Journal/Sentinel offices chirped.

However, let a conservative talk radio host make an off-the-cuff bet, and liberal journalists burst a blood vessel.  Eugene Kane wrote an article titled:  "How do you know when a right-wing talk show host is lying?"  I actually wrote an e-mail to Mr. Kane on his column, and you can see the exchange below:

The following letter has been making the rounds on the internet for a few weeks.  A friend of mine passed it on to me and was thrilled that I thought it would make an interesting blog.  (Thanks, P.S.! )

The letter was written by Lou Pritchett, author of "Stop Paddling and Start Rocking the Boat."  He is also a well-known speaker, savvy businessman, and the foremost leader in "change management."   Several websites have claimed that Pritchett's letter first saw the light of day when it was published in the New York Times.  I checked the Times archives and could find no record of it.  However, the letter IS out there and speaks for many of us at a very difficult time in the history of the United States.

Dear President Obama,

You are the thirteenth President under whom I have lived and unlike any of the others, you truly scare me.

-  You scare me because after months of exposure, I know nothing about you.

-  You scare me because I do not know how you paid for your expensive Ivy League education and your upscale lifestyle and housing with no visible signs of support.

-  You scare me because you did not spend the formative years of youth growing up in America and culturally you are not an American.

-  You scare me because you have never run a company or met a payroll.

-  You scare me because you have never had military experience, thus don't understand it at its core.

-  You scare me because you lack humility and "class", always blaming others.

-  You scare me because for over half your life you have aligned yourself with radical extremists who hate America and you refuse to publicly denounce these radicals that wish to see America fail.

-  You scare me because you are a cheerleader for the "blame America" crowd and deliver this message abroad.

-  You scare me because you want to change America to a European style country where the government sector dominates instead of the private sector.

-  You scare me because you want to replace our health care system with a government controlled one.

-  You scare me because you prefer "wind mills" to responsibly capitalizing on our own vast oil, coal, and shale reserves.

-  You scare me because you want to kill the American capitalist goose that lays the golden egg which provides the highest standard of living in the world.

-  You scare me because you have begun to use "extortion" tactics against certain banks and corporations.

-  You scare me because your own political party shrinks from challenging you on your wild and irresponsible spending proposals.

-  You scare me because you will not openly listen to or even consider opposing points of view from intelligent people.

-  You scare me because you falsely believe that you are both omnipotent and omniscient.

-  You scare me because the media gives you a free pass on everything you do.

-  You scare me because you demonize and want to silence the Limbaughs, Hannitys, O'Reillys, and Becks who offer opposing, conservative points of view.

-  You scare me because you prefer controlling over governing.

-  Finally, you scare me because if you serve a second term, I will probably not feel safe in writing a similar letter in 8 years.

                                                                             - Lou Pritchett

  I find it hard to believe the New York Times would actually publish a letter like this, since it goes against everything they believe in regarding their Messiah, Barack Obama.  Whatever.  The point is, Pritchett's words speak directly to the concerns and issues that many Americans find very troubling about the current occupant of the White House.  Thank you, Mr. Pritchett.  Well said. 

First Lady Michelle Obama found nothing wrong with wearing $588.00 Lavin sneakers recently while handing out bags of food to the needy at the Capital Food Bank in Washington, D.C.  Personally, I could care less how much Mrs. Obama spends on her clothes and/or shoes.  However, I do find three things concerning her choice of footwear to be very ironic.  

First, remember the outrage from liberals and the media regarding Sarah Palin's wardrobe costs during the Republican campaign for the presidency?  They couldn't bash Palin enough for wasting money on a wardrobe to look appropriate while meeting the public as a Vice-Presidential candidate.  How many stories did we have to read or hear about criticizing the cost of Palin's new clothes and hairstyle?  Will Mrs. Obama suffer the same intense level of scrutiny that Palin had to endure about her dress code?  Don't hold your breath. 

Second, it is very nice that Mrs. Obama volunteers her time to help out at a local food pantry.  But is it really necessary to wear a $588.00 pair of shoes to do such work?  What was Mrs. Obama thinking while she tied  those designer laces before heading out the door?  (Does the word "empathy" ring a bell?)  Bear with me here, but don't you think right about now, if Mrs. Obama were a Republican, the press would be pointing out how many needy families $588.00 could feed?  Why, I know my own family of five could buy enough groceries to last for several weeks....

And third, the shoes are ugly! 

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/obama/1554571,michelle-obama-expensive-shoes-050109.article