It's Hemmer Time

If Nancy Pelosi were a Republican, her political career would be over.

2009-05-17T00:22:00Z

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.

Remember John Kerry?

2009-05-16T00:43:00Z

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.

Wanda Sykes - proof that liberals can say anything.

2009-05-11T14:56:00Z

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?

Waterboarding is not torture.

2009-05-08T18:39:00Z

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.

A simple horse bet succeeds in exposing Doyle's lies.

2009-05-07T16:45:00Z

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:

Amy

I can’t believe so many folks are leaping to defend Belling after his embarrassing ‘vow’.Don’t’ you think he would be making lots of fun if some of his opponents got caught in the same situation? Come on!It’s not about Doyle, that’s a feeble attempt by Belling to switch the argument. You KNOW he knew all about Doyle before he made his statement, so it doesn’t pertain now. Lighten up J

Eugene Kane Columnist Milwaukee Journal Sentinel

414-223-5521

ekane@journalsentinel.com

From: Amy Hemmer Sent: Wednesday, May 06, 2009 9:25 AM
To: Eugene Kane
Cc: Marty Kaiser
Subject: May 5th column

How do you know when a left-wing Governor is lying? When he promises not to raise taxes in order to get re-elected, then he goes ahead and raises taxes once back in office!

How about a story on that, Eugene? Seems to me the issue of taxes is much bigger than a silly tongue-in-cheek bet Mark Belling made on his radio show... Funny how liberals always show their blatant hypocrisy and don't even seem to realize it.

Sincerely,

Amy L. Geiger-Hemmer

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Journal/Sentinel columnist Tim Cuprisin had to weigh in, too, with an article titled: "Belling won't pony up on racetrack vow" from May 5th and even had to write again on May 6th: "Mr. Belling, meet Mr. Olbermann."

Both Kane and Cuprisin seem outraged that Belling is not paying up - and LIED!!! Kane and Cuprisin have both printed words claiming that Belling is a "welsher." Hmmmm......wonder if either of these reporters have ever called Governor Doyle a "welsher" or even a "liar" for that matter....

By betting on a horse race, Belling has inadvertently succeeded in two key areas. First, he has brought undesired attention to the lies of Governor Doyle - which have been overlooked by the Wisconsin media for several years. Second, Belling has once again exposed the utter hypocrisy of liberal journalists - who seem more concerned and angry over a bet on a horse than a much more important issue that affects many Wisconsinites - tax increases!!!

Which lie holds more weight? Which lie is more important? A horse race or lying about tax increases that affect hundreds of thousands of people in Wisconsin? And, is Belling really lying? After all, Belling does say he will "pony up" when Doyle comes clean and tells the truth. Mr. Belling says: "If he (Doyle) does not honor his commitment, I will not honor mine. If that makes me a liar, I will be in the company of the governor of the State of Wisconsin." So, Doyle needs to address the numerous tax increases he has enacted after boldly promising not to. Then Belling will indeed pay up - promising that he will vote for Doyle as well as contribute to Doyle's 2010 campaign!

Funny how the media thinks this is a big "gotcha" moment for going after a conservative talk show host. Yet, how many "gotcha" moments has Governor Doyle offered the media? That the media has chosen to ignore? Thanks to Mr. Belling, the hypocrisy of the left and the lies of Governor Doyle are finally getting more attention than they have had in the past three years!!!

I bet (just had to use that word) that the furor over Belling's remark will be played up for days to come...

If we lived in a state that had ethical journalists writing for newspapers, wouldn't you think we'd be hearing about Governor Doyle's tax increases for days? weeks? months? Remember, former President George H. W. Bush promised not to raise taxes. Then he did. He lost the office of the presidency because of that lie. If common sense and fairness prevail, Doyle should lose the office of the Governor in 2010 for doing the exact same thing.

Dear President Obama: You scare me.

2009-05-06T01:19:00Z

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.

Michelle wears $588.00 sneakers to a food pantry.

2009-05-02T15:18:00Z

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

100 Daze

2009-04-30T12:24:00Z

President Barack Obama has completed his first one hundred days in office. Given the abrupt and sharp turn towards ultra-liberal policies and socialism, those who voted for Obama thinking he was a centrist have to be shaking their heads. Many of us already knew Obama was extremely liberal. All one had to do was look at his past as well as his friendships to realize this. Remember how the mainstream media kept telling people to ignore Obama's previous associations and activities, saying they didn't mean a thing should Obama become President? Too bad. People should have been paying attention.

Oh well. Sad to say, we do deserve the government we elect.

In this case, I'd have to say that those far-out lefties have to be mighty happy with their leader after 100 days. Obama has moved this country so far to the left in such a short period of time, that I fear many people don't even realize it yet. If you hate free enterprise and individual freedoms and responsibilities, and you desire more government intrusion and living in a "nanny state", Obama's your guy! Throw in weaker national defense, higher taxes, and "spreading of the income," and you can give Obama an "A+"...

On the other hand, if you don't want to rely on the government for your every need, prefer capitalism to socialism, believe in a strong national defense, want to pay less in taxes, and wish to see America remain the greatest nation on the face of the earth, Obama deserves an "F."

For a president to go around the globe, criticizing his own country in efforts to gain the adulation of our enemies is shocking. For a president to have nothing good to say about the country he was elected to represent is reprehensible. For a president to be in constant campaign-mode, ignoring the real issues while going to "town halls" to answer rehearsed questions is a waste of taxpayers dollars (not to mention having Air Force One fly over New York, scaring people into thinking another 9/11 was coming, for a photo-op!). For a president to attempt to rewrite the Constitution as he sees fit is dangerous and must be addressed. For a president to load up his cabinet with tax cheats is unethical. For a president who campaigned on ending pork-barrel spending, then to turn around and sign a massive spending bill with 9,000 earmarks is outrageous. For a president to spend the country into trillions of dollars of debt like we have never seen before should anger everyone. (And what kind of narcissist goes ahead and names the family dog after himself? B.O.! It would be funny if it wasn't true.....) I give Obama an "F".

Thanks to Newsmax for putting together a review: "Obama's Gaffes and Gimmicks Exposed: The First 100 Days": http://www.newsmax.com/gaffes/gaffes_09.html

1,360 days to go...

Yawn....Specter tells us what we already knew.

2009-04-29T14:25:00Z

What's the fuss? Senator Arlen Specter, R-Pennsylvania, finally came clean and admitted the truth. He is a Democrat. Many of us who closely follow politics knew this simple fact for years.

The mainstream media, however, is acting like this is a surprising revelation! What a triumph for Obama and the Democrats, putting them even closer to a filibuster-proof majority! Well, what's the big deal? Specter voted with the Democrats more often than with his own party. Specter was a RINO (Republican In Name Only). In addition, the media is trying to make Americans believe that Specter chose to leave the Republican party because he became "disillusioned" with the party he represented. They are actually reporting that Specter feels the Republican Party has drifted too far to the right. (Oh, the hypocrisy of the left never fails to amaze me... WHAT party has drifted WHICH direction??? If anything, what our country has seen since January 20, 2009 is a sharp turn to the way, way left. Pretty soon we'll be so far gone we won't be able to even see the middle....)

No, Arlen, the Republican Party became "disillusioned" with you - and you knew it!

Arlen Specter left the party solely to salvage his political career. Plain and simple. Up for re-election in 2010, Specter knew that his Republican constituents would not vote for him and his chances for re-election were slim to none if he ran as a Republican. The voters in Pennsylvania had finally wised up and realized Specter was no more a Republican than Barack Obama or Michael Moore are moderates. Specter was destined to lose if he ran as a Republican. So, what to do? Well, the solution was to come clean - admit to being a Democrat - and RUN as a Democrat. (Even with the switch, Specter's re-election chances are not looking good. Hopefully, Chris Dodd D-Conn., Harry Reid D-NV, Barbara Boxer D-CA., Russ Feingold D-WI, and fourteen other Dems will join him in losing their jobs come 2010!).

The rest of the "Traitor Trio" needs to go, too. This includes Olympia Snowe (R-Maine) who is up for re-election in 2012 and Susan Collins (R-Maine) whose term ends in 2014. Together with Specter, these three clowns were the only so-called Republicans to jump ship and vote in favor of President Obama's "Generational Theft Act" (aka "the economic stimulus bill").

The Republican party and conservatives welcome this defection. We realize we need to clean house - get rid of the RINO's currently serving in office and elect true conservatives and Republicans to represent us. Rather than see Specter's exit as bad news, I find it refreshing - a step in the right direction!

Good riddance, Arlen! And don't let the screen door hit you on your rear end on the way out!

A President is as smart as the people he surrounds himself with...

2009-04-28T16:29:00Z

...and if that is indeed the case, then President Obama has a severe case of the stupids. Whose brilliant idea was it to have an Air Force One back-up airplane escorted by two military jets fly close to major landmarks in New York city for a photo op? A photo op designed to get pictures for the White House to use to hand out as souvenirs to visitors and associates...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jn0tMMYEkQU

New Yorkers, who were not informed of the White House's plans to have these planes execute steep banked turns, fly low, and buzz such places as the Statue of Liberty and Wall Street, were in panic mode. Rightly so. People ran out of buildings into the streets, fearing another 9/11.

What was the Obama Administration thinking? Or were they even thinking at all? Barack Obama was said to be "irate" at hearing about this stunt, yet wouldn't the President usually be privy to knowing something like this was in the works? And what does this say about the type of people Obama has working for him?

Even those still suffering from severe Bush-derangement syndrome must admit that President Bush and his Administration would have never allowed this.

And for being the most technologically cutting-edge administration (as we are always told by the media), with the hippest President (who has a Blackberry!), hasn't the White House ever heard of Photo Shop? Such lengths to get a photo was simply uncalled for. Wonder how much this fly-by, 9/11 re-enactment cost the taxpayers...

(***Update 4/29/09: Cost of the Obama fly-by photo op: $328,835.00)

Rest assured that the news media will ignore or downplay this story because it makes the Obama Administration look, well, dumb. Americans don't need to know such information, right?

Darn! That teleprompter malfunctioned again!

2009-04-28T00:53:12Z

Is Obama incompetent? Can he speak without his beloved teleprompter?

The American people are always told over and over how brilliant Obama is. After all, he went to Harvard! (So did President Bush, as well as Yale, but that doesn't count. Bush was an idiot according to the mainstream media....). If Obama is so smart and so bright, why is he such an intellectual lightweight when it comes to thinking on his own two feet? Why can't he utter any profound, meaningful thoughts on his own?

Witness yet again another teleprompter malfunction throwing Obama for a loop:

http://www.politico.com/politico44/perm/0409/obama_gets_ahead_of_prompter_3813cbcb-1e4a-44c6-b1e7-26017e7b70c2.html

Most people could think their way through such glitches, but as we've seen numerous times, whenever Obama's teleprompter shuts down, so does he.

Is Obama as brilliant as many claim? Well, he has appointed a very incompetent administration - which includes no less than five tax cheaters. He embraces America's enemies with no thought to the consequences of his actions. He wants to nationalize health care, which is destined to cost him politically. He is leading this country into financial disaster, with debt amounting to the trillions and no end in sight. When off the 'prompter, Obama tends to say very questionable things that are very revealing as well as troubling (remember the famous "spread the wealth" comment to Joe the Plumber?..)

And now, once again, it appears that President Obama has no command of anything unless it is written down right in front of him. Sad to say, the President of the United States has an inability to think for himself. Sure, Obama is a very eloquent and smooth speaker - when he can read the words David Axelrod or George Soros want him to say! Remember how the media crucified Bush for an occasional speaking gaffe? Yet, President Bush could function without having to rely on a teleprompter. Obama cannot.

Compare Obama's bumblings and stumbles to Sarah Palin at the recent Republican National Convention, when she first accepted the nomination to become John McCain's Vice-Presidential candidate. Well, the teleprompter at that event had been acting up all along. During Palin's speech, it went out several times. Yet, Sarah Palin (vilified by the press as unqualified, inexperienced and stupid) managed to remain poised, cool, and didn't lose her stride. Many people in the audience didn't even know the teleprompter wasn't working. But the mainstream media always tells us how stupid the Palins, Bushs, Quayles, Fords, and Reagans of the world are. Aren't there ANY stupid Democrats? Guess they must all be geniuses....

However, given Obama's performances without a teleprompter in front of him, does anyone wonder what is this guy saying when he meets with foreign leaders? When he's left to his own devices? What is Obama saying to his own administration when he is in the White House (on those rare occasions when he isn't out on the never-ending campaign trail)? Does Obama even review policy? Is he up to date on what is going on in the world? Many times Obama seems very clueless and prefers to shove off pertinent issue-specific questions directed his way at others on his staff. Why? Is it because Obama doesn't know how or what to answer? Or does he need to be reassured by having someone else tell him what he should be saying?

It is becoming obvious with each passing day that seven years of voting "present" in the Illinois senate (unless the vote was to promote infanticide, then Obama always voted "yes"), followed by less than 144 days as a United States Senator haven't provided Barack Obama with the leadership capabilities required of the President of the United States. He is a lightweight and is in over his head. Yet the media professes that he is "brilliant" and the Obamazombies continue to follow him without question. Unfortunately, all of America will be paying the price for his incompetence.

Obama is all talk and little substance. And without his teleprompter, even his "talk" becomes questionable.

Is Barack Obama a traitor or just incompetent?

2009-04-25T16:42:00Z

After almost 100 days in office, it is clear that President Obama has a very ultra-liberal vision for America.

He is guiding America away from its status as a world leader, to that of being an equal or lesser partner with every other country on the planet. This is a very desirable position for many Democrats and lefties, who disdain America for being what many call a "super power." The "blame America first" crowd and those who are anti-American love what Obama is turning our country into. Obama is ripping apart the very foundations our country was created upon.

America has achieved a strong leadership position in the world in a very short historical time. In just a few centuries, America has prospered. Where other countries have stagnated for thousands of years, and some are still back in the middle ages, we have industrialized, invented things through the creativity of our citizens, built the strongest defense systems to keep our world safe, grown, improved the lives of millions, and contributed to the overall well-being of the planet and other nations through our help and generosity. (Did you know that America is the most generous country in the world?) Yet, many do not agree that a strong and powerful America is the "right" America. They confuse leadership with arrogance. Why has America always been known as the "land of the free, home of the brave?" And why do we suddenly find ourselves apologizing to everyone and anyone who will listen, via words from our own President, for all our unfounded "wrongs?" Some say Obama talks so eloquently that he can even make "America sucks" sound good. I, for one, am sick of it.

Our President is one of those people wishing to change America into the utopia that the left desires. Obama has morphed from the moderate he ran as while campaigning to an ultra-liberal, and he even makes Bill Clinton look like a good conservative. Obama is guiding us towards weaker national security, bigger government - government like we have never seen before, less individual freedom, more government take-overs of major businesses, and, of course, higher taxes (ala "spreading the income"). And don't forget, if you do well and are successful at work or owning a business, you will be punished! You must have more and more of your earnings taken away simply because there will always be someone out there who has less! In the world of liberalism, that is simply not FAIR! In short order, Obama's dislike of our capitalist system is becoming quite evident. We are indeed headed towards what many liberals desire - socialism.

The question was recently posed to me on whether or not I consider Obama a "traitor." In the sense that he has made our enemies - like al-Queda - openly aware of the U.S. Military interrogation techniques, as well as given them information on supposed withdrawal dates from Iraq, and seems intent on punishing many who were doing their jobs to protect our country, one really has to wonder. Obama's actions do look like they are aiding the enemy. Yet, what is Obama's intent? Is he just an incompetent liberal, striving to achieve the ultimate liberal goal of re-inventing America to be little more than the same as other countries? Does he actually think that is a good thing? Knocking us off our pedestal as a world power, because the left doesn't see that as somehow being a desirable position? If that is the case, I would say Obama is not a traitor. He is doing what he believes in. There are more than 50% of Americans who don't agree with Obama, and I am one of them. And that number seems to be growing, which is a sign that many people have finally caught on to what Obama is all about.

Hindsight, of course, is 20-20. Americans were privy to Obama's beliefs before the election. Obama had many friendships - and most of them were with people who were known America-bashers, domestic terrorists, as well as anti-white racists. Yet, during the election cycle, we were told to look the other way, that such friendships didn't matter. That these decade-long associations weren't an issue. Well, obviously, such friendships should have given us major clues as to what Obama thinks of America and how he wants to change it. Too late now, Obama is President. To borrow a quote from an anti-American, racist friend of Obama's for twenty-plus years, the Reverend Jeremiah Wright: "The chickens have come home to roost."

As a conservative, I do wonder if Obama should be called a traitor or just incompetent. I'm sure that many of the ultra-lefties out there think what Obama is doing is just wonderful. I find that frightening.

100 days in office and look at how far our country has already fallen. Not for the better, in my view. Weaker national security, warm and fuzzy handshakes with our enemies, a trillion-dollar spending plan with no way to pay for it, and numerous assaults on our Constitution that the media conveniently refuses to point out or report on (such as the U.S. Census falling under the control of the White House for the first time in history, which is unprecedented).

In all of Obama's speeches, does he ever talk about what a great country America is? Does he ever speak with pride about all of America's accomplishments, and why so many people are trying to get into this country, whether legally or illegally? America presents a beacon of hope to many. We have freedoms (at least for a while) that few countries are able to enjoy. We have free will. We have choices and opportunities. It would serve Barack Obama well to remember all the good of America, rather than to continue to point out the bad. By focusing on the perceived ills, Obama seems to be legitimizing his attempts to tear down our country to rebuild it as the next France. Why? Why do we want to morph into another country? What is wrong with America?

Please, President Obama, tell us what you like about our country, other than the fact you got elected. As for being a traitor or just an incompetent leader, the jury is still out. Either way, as I've stated before, 2012 cannot get here fast enough.

Another 9/11 coming?

2009-04-24T12:57:00Z

Yet another campaign promise tossed under the bus, and this one is a biggie.

On Tuesday, April 21st, President Obama stated that he could support an inquiry into the methods used to gather information from terrorists after 9/11. Specifically, Obama left the door wide open to go after certain Bush Administration officials for prosecution. This is in direct opposition to what Obama had originally said while running for President. During that time, Obama claimed he did not want to see any prosecution of CIA agents and/or other interrogators who took part in certain interrogation tactics that some disapproved of. Obama wanted to "move forward."

So now a complete turnaround. This should come as no surprise, since Obama just cannot seem to adhere to many of his pre-election promises. Obama tends to say something one day, then do a complete about-face later on. It's a pattern that is becoming very common. However, in breaking this promise, Obama is leaving America very vulnerable to another terrorist attack. Another 9/11. What the president is doing is wrong. He is trying to placate the folks at moveon.org and other rabid lefties, while neglecting the national security of America. Obama has to realize that he cannot keep lefties happy and America safe at the same time. It doesn't work. The two are like oil and water. Here are several reasons why America is less safe because of our President:

1) The CIA and others will be hesitant in going forward to get information out of captured terrorists. They realize they need to protect themselves from future prosecution from the very people they are trying to keep safe.

2) Our enemies are getting specific information on what the CIA/military will be allowed to do to them if they are captured. They can prepare. They don't have to worry about being captured and giving up valuable information anymore.

3) Rather than focusing on combating terrorists and protecting America, the President has chosen to placate the left. In the process, he is further dividing the country. Obama is the most polarizing president this nation has ever seen, and this recent action does not help in bringing the country together. The fact is, we are being driven further apart.

4) America seems to be headed back to the pre-9/11 days. Terrorists and terrorism were looked upon like criminal activities. The war on terror didn't exist. America wasn't paying attention. We seem to be going in that direction again, and we seem more intent on punishing the people who are risking their lives to keep us safe than focusing on fighting the terrorists that want to kill us.

5) The United States military already has to adhere to "rules of engagement," giving the enemy a slight edge in combat situations. How in the future will such investigations and thoughts of liability affect our fighting men and women? Will they be hesitant in doing their jobs? Will they be second-guessing everything they do? They may eventually refuse to do anything that could lead to their own prosecution - at the hands of their own government. How reprehensible. Rather than supporting our fighting efforts, our own President seems to be undermining them.

One key issue that revealed Obama's true intentions is the fact that he recently chose to release four memos detailing terrorist interrogation techniques. It is by the release of these memos that the left has gone apoplectic and is now demanding to see Bush officials prosecuted. Unfortunately, the so-called "transparent" governing style of Barack Obama didn't allow for the release of other memos clearly showing that the interrogation techniques used in the war on terror worked. In addition, a memo that Dennis Blair, Obama's Director of National Intelligence, released was actually altered by the Obama Administration before it was published. The Obama administration left out Blair's assessment that the interrogations produced actionable and critical information. What Blair had to say contradicted Obama's claim that the interrogation methods produced no data. This was a lie on Obama's part.

There are also many memos out there waiting to be de-classified that tell how several terrorist attacks were thwarted due to information gathered from harsh interrogation techniques. How many American lives were saved? Hundreds? Thousands? The American people have the right to see these results from these interrogations, rather than just the information Obama is providing on the techniques themselves.

How convenient for Obama and his administration to publish memos that only present one side of the issue. Does anyone really remember 9/11? It appears as though Mr. Obama and many on the left have forgotten. Maybe Barack should be forced to sit and listen to the 911 calls which came out of the World Trade Center towers on that fateful day. America was attacked. Thousands of innocent lives were lost. And at the time, it was believed that another major attack was imminent. The Bush Administration acted immediately in the best interests of protecting our country. The interrogation methods approved - not just by our President - but by many of our highest-ranking Democrat and Republican politicians, served to allow intelligence gathering that prevented further mass killings on our soil. That is a fact. As mentioned before, even Obama's Director of National Intelligence agreed. Dennis Blair pointed out that most of what America learned about al-Qaeda after 9/11 came from waterboarding Khalid Sheikh Mohammed and Abu Zubaydah. To quote Blair: "High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al Qaeda organization that was attacking this country."

Obama is putting the desires of some of his supporters above the safety of our country. What kind of leader is Obama? Judging from this recent plan to go after and prosecute lawyers who simply wrote their opinions on terrorist interrogation techniques, it doesn't appear that Obama has the best interest of America at heart. Coming at the heels of his recent "apology tours" - in which Obama went to various foreign countries and apologized for all the wrongs of America (or what Obama perceives to be the evils of his own country), should really have many Americans concerned. Embracing our enemies like Hugo Chavez doesn't help, either. And now this.

America has a weak President, intent on making America weaker. Another 9/11 is indeed a real possibility.

Obama doesn't stand up for America.

2009-04-21T16:50:00Z

Yet another questionable performance by President Obama at the Summit of the Americas. This comes from April 18, 2009 at the opening ceremonies.

From http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/04/18/obama-endures-ortega-diatribe/:

"President Obama endured a 50-minute diatribe from socialist Nicaraguan President Daniel Ortega that lashed out at a century of what he called terroristic U.S. aggression in Central America and included a rambling denunciation of the U.S.-imposed isolation of Cuba's Communist government."

Does anyone wonder, besides me, how the President of the United States could have sat and listened to a Marxist Dictator like Daniel Ortega lash out at America and NOT DO ANYTHING? Obama, if he had any guts or wished to express the disapproval of America, could have stood up and walked out. Yet, he sat and listened. Maybe he was waiting for the opportunity after Ortega's tongue-lashing to go and shake the guys hand... or ask for an autograph...or better yet - another photo op! Or worse....maybe Obama was in agreement with Ortega.....

During one point of his rant, Ortega mentioned the Bay of Pigs incident. Ortega stated that Obama could not be held responsible for that, since Obama was only an infant. Obama's response: “I’m grateful that President Ortega did not blame me for things that happened when I was three months old.” (Hmmmmm, isn't there a bit of an irony here, when white people are STILL being blamed for the ills of slavery in America, yet none of us existed when slavery was around?....but that's another blog entirely.....and yet more proof of the hypocrisy of the left.) Now, back on topic...

Hey, even France got up and walked out at the recent U.N. conference on race relations once Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad began to speak about the Holocaust, claiming the West used it as a pretext for aggression against Palestinians. Many European diplomats (yes, even wimpy France as I just mentioned) showed enough class and sense of duty (actually, sense of right and wrong) to stand up and walk out while Ahmadinejad was going off on his tirade. They did not approve of what Ahmadinejad was saying. They spoke with their feet - and good for them!!! Wonder what our President would have done if he would have been in the audience. Is it a sure thing that he would have stood up and walked out in protest, too? One has to wonder...

I personally find it highly doubtful that Obama would have walked out at the U.N. conference, given the fact that President Obama sat passively and didn't do a darn thing while his own country was being ripped to shreds in a speech by Ortega at the Summit. All Obama had to say when asked to comment on what Ortega said was that he found "the speech to be 50 minutes long." I swear I cannot make this stuff up. Couldn't Obama have offered a real rebuttal? Something with maybe a hint of outrage or disgust? Could Obama have gone after the source - Ortega? Could he have possibly praised America for something....just anything? Or maybe Obama couldn't think of anything to praise his own country for.... Needless to say, Obama did NOTHING.

What kind of leader is Obama? What kind of leader is the President of the United States? What kind of man seeks to embrace and desire the approval of thug dictators and Marxists, and refuses to stand up and defend America? Obama had many opportunities at the Summit of the Americas. Yet, he chose to instead go for friendly handshakes and warm and fuzzy photos. He chose to ignore all the anti-American speeches directed at his own country. Do Americans out there feel short-changed by the representation of our so-called leader?

Americans SHOULD be offended by Obama's behavior! Obama's performance spoke volumes about what he thinks about the country the President is supposed to represent. Obama doesn't seem to think too highly of America. His own words and actions of the past few days clearly show as much.

Shameful.

The handshake seen 'round the world.

2009-04-18T14:15:00Z

First President Obama travels to Europe and criticizes his own country - to the loud applause from the anti-American crowds. Now the President is in Trinidad/Tabago at the Summit of the Americas, and guess what? Yes, he is apologizing for America again. This time it looks as though we are responsible for all the ills of Mexico. The drug cartels, the unrest, the poverty. But wait, isn't Mexico one of the most corrupt countries around? Isn't it bankrupt? Oh, never mind. The United States is to blame, somehow, according to Obama. And guess what? More applause!

Obama's motto seems to be "Appeasement through apologies." The late, great President Ronald Reagan, whose motto was "Peace through strength" must be rolling around in his grave. Who would have thought that a sitting United States President would intentionally criticize his country whenever sets foot on foreign soil? What is Obama's underlying goal? To purposely make our country out to be the "bad guy" so no one will question anything when Obama and his Administration turn America into a socialist country?

And now the crowning moment. At the Summit, President Obama purposely searched out Venezuela's socialist dictator, Hugo Chavez, to shake his hand. Yes, you understood that correctly. Obama clearly looked for Chavez and when he saw him, Obama made a beeline over introduce himself. Chavez, who once called President Bush "the devil" and just a few weeks ago called Obama "the poor ignoramus," was fawned over by Barack Obama. (I'm surprised Obama didn't fist-bump the dictator! Maybe at their next buddy session, he will...)

Didn't Hugo Chavez just express his views that he hoped "America would be finished in the near future?" Chavez is also known to provide funding to FARC terrorists and he supports Hezbollah. Yet, here is our President, who actually WENT LOOKING for Chavez to shake his hand!!! And what a propaganda tool for Chavez! This photo is going to be all over the Latin America countries -sent out by the Chavez camp. Look at what Chavez has accomplished, by doing nothing more than being a dictator and railing against the United States. He has achieved the respect and admiration of - the President of the United States. Yes, Hugo Chavez, you can!!! WHY?

What Obama did speaks volumes around the world. He is legitimizing thug leaders like Chavez. Our foreign policy now appears to the world that America likes dictators. Countries can do whatever they want, with no repercussions from the United States. Just look at how Obama dealt with North Korea (he did nothing). North Korea, after recently launching a missile in direct defiance of the United States, just kicked out United Nations inspectors and has said to the world that it is continuing with it's nuclear ambitions. Yet another snub directed at the United States. The same can be said for Iran. And what does the U.S. do? Those crickets are chirping.....

The one good thing President Barack Obama had done since January is to allow the United States Navy SEALS to use force when rescuing a captive U.S. captain on a sailing vessel near Africa. As most people know, the recent episode with the Somali pirates ended when the Navy SEALS saved the captain and killed the pirates. Unfortunately, Obama's words and actions regarding the United States, and his apparent love and admiration of dictators, greatly overshadow this one positive action.

Is it asking too much of the President of the United States to actually talk about how great America is when meeting with foreign leaders? The past history of America is rich with inspiration, achievement, and glory. Yet, our President delights in continually bashing and apologizing for America. Although, we should have seen this coming. Obama's past was filled with friendships with known America-haters. Domestic terrorists. Racist, anti-American preachers. Why were many voters led to believe Obama would suddenly love his country once he set foot in the Oval Office?

As far as I can tell, the only thing Obama likes about America is the fact that many clueless people voted him into office as President of the United States.

The Very Hungry Caterpillar.

2009-04-17T18:28:15Z

As most of my readers with children will know, the title of my blog is the name of a children's book written by Eric Carle. Most kids love the book - it's very colorful and a fun read for the little ones. My children really enjoyed it when they were growing up.

That being the case, for some reason that book is the first thing I thought of when reading the latest anti-Bush article in the 4/17/09 Urinal/Sentinel. The story, titled "No prosecutions at CIA" is from the Associated Press. The story is about CIA officials who participated in the questioning of terrorists. It seems Obama has seen fit to release Bush memos on such interrogations. Yes, the interrogation of those murderous terrorists who want to see us dead. Who do not wish to understand us. Who do not wish to befriend us. Yet, having a leader now who is intent on begging everyone to love us (or I should say, love him), we need to punish ourselves for occasionally being mean to terrorists (oops - "freedom fighters"). Little mention is made of the wonderful accommodations accorded these monsters in Club Gitmo or other prisons. Food especially prepared to their religious beliefs. 3 hots and a cot. A Koran for their reading pleasure on how to stay committed to jihad. Exercise when needed.

Oh, but wait. It does seem that 26 terrorist thugs may have endured a bit of uncomfortable treatment! Never mind that the information eventually extracted from these thugs helped save many American lives and thwarted terrorist threats.Waterboarding - that favorite act the left likes to use to show how barbaric we are - was used on three terrorists. America obtained very important information due to using waterboarding techniques. Waterboarding was OK'd as questioning device by many other politicians besides President Bush, but we never hear about that. The CIA, in questioning some of the most dangerous of the prisoners may have slapped a few. They may have not allowed them a full eight hours of nighty-night. I know, it gets worse! One prisoner was known to have a fear of insects. The CIA was thinking of putting him in a box filled with caterpillars!!!! (That is why I thought of the Eric Carle story....) I know...how horrible! Imagine the terror - a murdering terrorist who wouldn't think twice about shooting or slitting the throat of an American might have to spend a few minutes with fuzzy caterpillars! Egads! The bug adventure never took place, but what kind of nation have we become???? (I swear, I cannot make this stuff up....)

It is a fact that terrorists are not covered under the Geneva Convention. However, the United States did follow the Geneva Convention in dealing with terrorists - even though we did not have to. Never mind that our government did NOTHING illegal in dealing with terrorists. Never mind that the enemy feels no remorse about slitting throats of people on national television or strapping bombs on children to murder American soldiers. No, we are supposed to wring our hands, beat ourselves up and apologize to the world for our horrible mistreatment of these lowlifes. Why?

Because Obama wants America to look bad. In apologizing over and over for the arrogance and supposed misdeeds of America to foreign audiences, Obama receives praise. And those in America who dislike our own country, too, and continue to think we are wrong on just about everything, love Obama's bashing of our own country. This disdain serves a purpose. It gives Obama power - the power to tear down America and re-build it as he sees fit. We are well on our way to becoming a sissified socialist country.

So, the fact that the Obama Administration and the media continue in their quest to trash Bush and say America is horrible for mistreating terrorists serves a purpose. It is a political tool being used to grasp even more power. Power that is undeserved and damaging to our country. Not to mention dangerous.

So, "No prosecutions at CIA." Good. The fact is, the Bush Administration and President Bush committed no war crimes. Why continue to beat that drum when it is baseless? Because Obama is using it as a tool to blame America yet again.

Isn't it fair to suggest that the mainstream media report on war crimes committed by terrorists for a change? After all, aren't there supposed to be two sides to every story? Unfortunately this will never happen. Our media today has become little more than stenographers for the Obama Administration.

Somali Pirates are now called "voluntary coast guard members"

2009-04-16T16:26:33Z

The wise and well-respected (yes, I am being very sarcastic) Reverend Al Sharpton has come through with blazing colors in his defense of the Somali pirates. Actually, it is rather a surprise that Sharpton isn't praising Obama for Obama's actions in dealing with the Somali pirates holding an American captain hostage for several days. Wonder what is up with that? Did Obama slight Sharpton somehow in the past? Is Obama leaving Sharpton out of his "inner-circle?" Maybe Sharpton just wants to be in the limelight and garnish attention by playing the oh-so-common race card and making outlandish statements.

As most people know by now, the U.S. Navy/Somali pirate stand-off eventually ended with President Obama giving the go-ahead to the Pentagon to use force to save the captured U.S. captain. They did - and Navy SEAL snipers killed 3 Somali pirates with quick shots to their heads. The power of the U.S. Navy at work. Good for Obama, great for our Navy and for our country.

Now it appears that Sharpton is rather sympathetic - not to the crew of the U.S. ship seized by the pirates, nor the brave captain. No. Sharpton feels that pirates are actually "voluntary coast guard members." They were doing their jobs on the high seas. I say, what???? Is he crazy?

In addition, some people of the ultra-liberal persuasion have suggested that the actions taken in Somalia could be described as: Obama orders the military execution of 3 black teenage Muslim voluntary coast guard members. (Although it is surprising that the term "Muslim" is even used, since our mainstream media is refraining from printing that word in any of the stories regarding the pirates....) I for one, say that if Bush had been President and done exactly the same thing as President Obama, that is exactly the headline our mainstream media would have printed. "President Bush orders the military execution of 3 black teenage Muslim voluntary coast guard members." Sounds like a typical headline dedicated to Bush by our biased media. The media wouldn't have thought twice about running it. Remember, everything Bush did was evil - and that would have included allowing the murders of three black teenagers in cold blood! If anyone disagrees with me and believes that the mainstream media would have touted Bush and applauded his actions, please let me know.

To hear Sharptons words: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DUbsLKNCUoA

Remember Sharpton's views when elections roll around in 2010 and 2012. The mainstream media, for whatever reason, tend to fawn all over Sharpton and the Reverend Jesse Jackson at election times - as if their views are actually relevant or important. These guys are clowns. They need to go away. Why the media continues to think they offer wise and brilliant observations is beyond me. And Sharpton's recent statement, dumbing down the actions of Somali pirates should give people pause. Why in the world is Sharpton trying to make the pirates out to be part of a "voluntary coast guard?" Last time I looked, Coast Guards did not board ships with violence, armed with AK-47's, rocket launchers, and the intent of taking hostages and demanding ransoms...

Yet another example of trying to call something it is not. First we had "freedom fighters" taking the place of "terrorists." Then came the "Overseas contingency operation" replacing the "war on terror." Don't forget that we must call "illegal aliens" by a kinder, softer term: "undocumented workers." And those who are "pro-abortion" are always called "pro-choice." How nice and sweet! Distract from reality. Al Sharpton has followed suit by calling "Somali pirates" a new kind of "voluntary coast guard member." All of this would be so laughable if it wasn't true. Let's see if Sharpton's new terminology actually sticks.

April 15th, 2009 -Tax Freedom Day

2009-04-15T13:55:00Z

Who Pays Income Taxes? See Who Pays What

For Tax Year 2006

Percentiles Ranked by AGI	AGI Threshold on Percentiles	Percentage of Federal Personal Income Tax Paid
Top 1%	$388,806	39.89
Top 5%	$153,542	60.14
Top 10%	$108,904	70.79
Top 25%	$64,702	86.27
Top 50%	$31,987	97.01
Bottom 50%	<$31,987	2.99
Note: AGI is Adjusted Gross Income Source: Internal Revenue Service

(The chart shown above is from The Taxpayers Union website : http://www.ntu.org/main/page.php?PageID=6)

Today, April 15th is commonly known as Tax Freedom Day, meaning from this day forward, you are allowed to keep your earnings for yourself. The first three and a half months of the year you spent working was to pay our government.

I say that our government should not be allowed to automatically take money out of people's paychecks. Instead, we should have everyone who pays taxes write a huge check out to the government at the end of the year. Imagine how outraged many taxpayers would be when they finally realize the large amount of earnings our government takes. And how little we taxpayers get back. What little say we really have as to how our money is spent.

In reviewing the table above, remember Obama's wish to make tax distribution more "fair?" Just what did Obama mean by that? Looks like the top 50% of American taxpayers pay almost 100% of the taxes. And the top 5% of earners pay 60% - yes, 60%! of the taxes in America. The top 10% pay 70% of the taxes! How "fair" is that? The bottom 50% of the population pay LESS THAN 2.99% in taxes! Never mind. The "evil rich" can give, give, give..... according to our President and the Democrats in charge. The "evil rich" don't deserve the money they make! Spread the wealth! I'd say that the table shown above will shift even more of the tax burden to the top 50% of earners. The "haves" will be paying even more for the "have nots." Eventually, we will reach a breaking point. People just won't want to work anymore, if all of their money is being taken away by the government. It is unfortunate that our current government and President sees fit to punish success, but we are shifting towards socialism and that is to be expected.

From the looks of things, maybe "Tax Freedom Day" will fall in June or July of next year...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Interesting facts (from Newt Gingrich (4/15/09) at http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=31474

• If you’re a 50-year old-with a college degree, you will pay approximately $81,000 over your working life just to pay the interest on the debt in the Obama budget.

• If you’re a 40-year-old, you’ll pay $132,000.

• And if you’re a 20-year-old, just starting out after college, you will pay a whopping $114,000 just to service the interest on the debt created by the Obama budget.

The crickets have stopped chirping...for now!

2009-04-13T14:30:00Z

What a great surprise to wake up to this Monday morning! After five days of the saga of the U.S. vessel vs. Somali pirates off the coast of Africa, President Obama finally authorized the Pentagon to use force if necessary to save the life of the American captain being held captive by the Somali pirates. Taking Obama up on his order, U.S. Navy sharpshooters went ahead and opened fire on the pirates, killing three and saving Captain Richard Phillips.

Good for President Obama! - and especially good for our U.S. military - specifically the U.S. Navy Seals. The only thing I can say is - what took so long? Maybe in the future, Obama will be more direct and stand up to those who threaten the United States immediately. But for now, way to go, President Obama! (He must have read my blog post from a few days ago....since Obama did exactly what I suggested!)

Unfortunately, the usual suspects are already decrying Obama's actions! Unbelievable. Why didn't he "negotiate" longer? (Will liberals now be calling Obama a "cowboy?" ) We need to work things out with talk, not violence! Blah blah blah!...... I'm waiting for the ACLU to rush in and go after the Navy SEALS for killing those poor pirates! They must have violated pirate's rights, somehow! Maybe some lawyers back in the U.S. will see fit to try to prosecute the SEALS, too.

Others are already saying that now the pirate action will escalate! The pirates will want to retaliate against the United States! (Where have we heard similar words like that before?). So what? So what if a bunch of thug Somali pirates threaten the United States! Who is the most powerful country in the world? Who has the Navy SEALS? Who can squash the pirates like the cockroaches they are? I think the pirates may soon wish to find new day jobs....

Now if only President Obama can learn from this. Sometimes, one cannot befriend enemies who do not wish to be friends. Sometimes negotiations do nothing. Obama still needs to deal with North Korea and Iran. The Obama Administration has chosen to basically ignore the recent actions of those two countries - and both demand the attention of the United States. They are still the elephant in the room - North Korea for it's recent missile test and Iran for it's nuclear program. Hopefully Obama has seen the light - that America cannot sit on its hands while it's enemies go about their merry way doing whatever they wish.

For now, President Obama did the right thing. He passed the this test. The Navy SEAL's did their job and did it well.

The Pope is NOT an idiot.

2009-04-12T16:17:00Z

A recent blog by Victor Ponelis made that claim that "The Pope is an Idiot" because of a statement the Pope made in regards to condom use in Africa. Specifically, Pope Benedict XVI commented in March that condom distribution in Africa wasn't helping, and may actually be worsening the spread of HIV/AID's in Africa. Well, of course the usual suspects - including Ponelis and many of the same liberal commentors were outraged. How could the Pope say such a thing!?!?!?!

The Harvard School of Public Health, and the head of Harvard's AID's Prevention Research Project - Edward C. Green recently came out and agreed with the Pope. In addition, 150 AID's researchers reached the same conclusion. The Pope is correct.

According to Green, condom promotion in other countries has been effective, but not in Africa. Green cites two examples where condom use has helped: Thailand and Cambodia. HIV was commonly transmitted through commercial sex - in brothels - in those two areas. Once condoms began being used, the spread of HIV and AID's went down.

Green and his researches found the same cannot be said about Africa. Condom promotion is actually making the problem worse.

Green points out to "risk compensation" as being a factor in the failure of condoms to stem the transmission of HIV/AID's in Africa. The studies from Harvard actually showed that Africans tended to engage in even riskier sex than ever before - with multiple partners. Africans began to think that because they used a condom sometimes, they'd be safe. Another reason why condoms do little to stem the spread of HIV and AID's is that in Africa, is that many believe the use of condoms implies a lack of trust. So condoms are not used. In addition, in many parts of Africa, significant proportions of the population have several sex partners who overlap in time. One prime example is Botswana, which has one of the world's highest HIV rates. 43% of the men and 17% of the women Green and his group surveyed had two or more regular sex partners in one year's time.

The conclusion that the Harvard AID's Prevention Research Project reached was that faithful mutual monogamy is the key to reducing the spread of HIV and AID's in Africa. And keep this in mind, Edward C. Green is an admitted liberal. (Green has even stated "We liberals who work in the fields of global HIV/AIDS and family planning take terrible professional risks if we side with the Pope on a divisive topic like this. My comments are only about the question of condoms working to stem the spread of AIDS in Africa's generalized epidemics - nowhere else.") Green says the key to ending the HIV/AID's epidemic in Africa is to break up multiple and concurrent sexual networks throughout the continent. Programs such as "Sticking to One Partner" or "Zero Grazing" which promote people being in monogamous relationships and being faithful have seen success in such countries as Uganda. The conclusions reached by Harvard suggest that for sexually active adults in Africa, the first priority must be to promote mutual fidelity.

Green says he is not anti-condom in the least, yet it is a fact (yes, a fact!) that condom promotion does NOT work in Africa. In addition, Green points to an earlier study done in 2003 by Norman Hearst and Sanny Chen at the University of California. The study in 2003 found no evidence of condoms working as a primary HIV-prevention measure in Africa. Green does say that if people refuse to participate in mutually exclusive monogamous relationships - as many undoubtedly will, condoms will have to be a back-up strategy.

Pope Benedict XVI was right. Wonder if any of those open-minded people out there so quick to condemn the Pope will admit they were wrong?

....on that note, a Happy Easter to all.