Saturday, May 30, 2009

Friday, May 29, 2009

Can't

North Korea makes a big boom and disavows past peace treaties.

Can't do much
Can't blame Bush/will try
Can't use EI, he promised
Can't enforce UN resolutions
Can't depend on Congress to back him up, even after most support him.
Can't use military force.

Poor "O"
Follow along if you can kids:
As Dick Cheney said, our government-run torture regime doesn’t motivate would-be terrorists or increase attacks on our troops. Terrorists don’t care about stuff like that. They hate us for our freedoms!
But - heaven’s no!! - we can’t release photos of torture because those pictures will increase attacks on our troops and homeland.
Like listening to the sound of one sociopath playing patty-cake.
Dr. Jim has asked Whre have I been lately, so here goes:Of course, Sotomayor's compelling life story and background was not irrelevant to her selection – diversity of various kinds (regional, religious, ethnic) has always played a part in the modern supreme court process, on the part of both Democratic and Republican presidents. But her formal qualifications – advancing from poverty in the Bronx to Princeton, editor of the Yale Law Journal and nearly 20 years of distinguished service on the federal courts – are comparable or superior to any recent nominee.
They're certainly more impressive than those of the conservative icons William Rehnquist, who had never served a day as a judge and had served only about three years as assistant attorney general, and Clarence Thomas,
Attempts to portray a nominee whose qualifications are remarkably similar to the most recently confirmed justice (Samuel Alito, also a Princeton and Yale Law graduate) as unworthy of the court are more likely to damage politically those making the arguments than Sotomayor's nomination prospects.

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

Tuesday, May 26, 2009

WSJ

If ever a state were ripe for bold economic reform, it would be New Jersey, which is shedding jobs and is in perennial budget crisis despite one of the highest tax burdens in the land. So why is Chris Christie, the GOP front-runner in the state's 2009 gubernatorial race, taking cheap shots at the flat tax?
Mr. Christie is a former U.S. attorney who did yeoman work putting away the state's many political thieves. But he seems to be running scared in next month's Republican primary, when he faces former Mayor of Bogota Steve Lonegan, who is proposing to scrap Jersey's job-killing graduated income tax that has rates running from 1.4% to 8.97%. Mr. Lonegan wants to replace it with a 2.98% flat tax on the first dollar of income earned.

WSJ

Here's a two-minute drill in soak-the-rich economics:
Maryland couldn't balance its budget last year, so the state tried to close the shortfall by fleecing the wealthy. Politicians in Annapolis created a millionaire tax bracket, raising the top marginal income-tax rate to 6.25%. And because cities such as Baltimore and Bethesda also impose income taxes, the state-local tax rate can go as high as 9.45%. Governor Martin O'Malley, a dedicated class warrior, declared that these richest 0.3% of filers were "willing and able to pay their fair share." The Baltimore Sun predicted the rich would "grin and bear it."
One year later, nobody's grinning. One-third of the millionaires have disappeared from Maryland tax rolls. In 2008 roughly 3,000 million-dollar income tax returns were filed by the end of April. This year there were 2,000, which the state comptroller's office concedes is a "substantial decline." On those missing returns, the government collects 6.25% of nothing. Instead of the state coffers gaining the extra $106 million the politicians predicted, millionaires paid $100 million less in taxes than they did last year -- even at higher rates.
No doubt the majority of that loss in millionaire filings results from the recession. However, this is one reason that depending on the rich to finance government is so ill-advised: Progressive tax rates create mountains of cash during good times that vanish during recessions. For evidence, consult California, New York and New Jersey (see here).

Obama and the South Park gnomes

Monday, May 25, 2009

My favorite article of recent memory. Honestly, why is this not were the US is heading in the very near future? I especially love the bold portions.

I read this and cheered!


California finally facing day of fiscal reckoning
State out of options, drastic budget cuts on way
Associated Press
SACRAMENTO - The day of reckoning that California has been warned about for years has arrived.
The longest recession in generations and the defeat last week of a package of budget-balancing ballot measures are expected to lead to state spending cuts so deep and so painful that they could rewrite the social contract between California and its citizens. They could also force a fundamental rethinking of the proper role of government in the Golden State.
"The voters are getting what they asked for, but I'm not sure at the end of the day they're going to like what they asked for," said Jim Earp, executive director of the California Alliance for Jobs, which represents the hard-hit construction industry. "I think we've crossed a threshold in many ways."

California is looking at a budget shortfall projected at more than $24 billion when the new fiscal year starts in July. That is more than one-quarter of the state's general fund.
This week, voters said they no longer want the Legislature to balance budgets with higher taxes, complicated transfer schemes or borrowing that pushes California's financial problems off into the distant future. In light of that, Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger has made it clear he intends to close the gap almost entirely through drastic spending cuts. Hooray
The governor's cutbacks could include ending the state's main welfare program for the poor, eliminating health coverage for about 1.5 million poor children, halting cash grants for about 77,000 college students, shortening the school year by seven days, laying off thousands of state workers and teachers, slashing money for state parks and releasing thousands of prisoners before their sentences are finished.
"I understand that these cuts are very painful and they affect real lives," Schwarzenegger said. "This is the harsh reality and the reality that we face. Sacramento is not Washington - we cannot print our own money. We can only spend what we have." Hooray again!
He also has advocated selling state assets, including the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum and San Quentin State Prison.
The Democrats who control the Legislature do not want major spending cuts, but so far they don't have a plan for closing the deficit. And if their solution is higher taxes and more borrowing, they will probably not have enough Republican votes to get the two-thirds approval needed for passage.
A group of business leaders and good-government groups has begun the process of calling for a convention to rewrite the California Constitution.
A separate commission is expected to release a proposal to rework the state's tax structure, which is vulnerable to booms and busts in California's economy because it relies heavily on high-income earners.

Star Parker

Back on Uncle Sam's plantation Star Parker - Syndicated ColumnistSix years ago I wrote a book called Uncle Sam's Plantation. I wrote the book to tell my own story of what I saw living inside the welfare state and my own transformation out of it.I said in that book that indeed there are two Americas -- a poor America on socialism and a wealthy America on capitalism.

water boarding

http://content1.clipmarks.com/content/7E8ADC46-F3DD-4D6F-B184-3A07CF501B7C/
Musings by the other Richie

#1 How can one not forget that Cheney put the US into wars for no reason, put us on the wrong moral path and embarrassed our nation on the world stage…forget politics..how about sanity

#2 I have to believe that if Rush Limbaugh and Sara Palin procreated the result would be darth Vader and Jimmy G…I really hate to waste so many brain cells…but-
You should refer to the Newsweek interview with Ali Soufan..chief interrogator..he got the most information from the worst terrorists through extended conversation…if you water board 183 times (Kalid Mohamed) maybe it’s not working..face it..if molten lead were poured up anyone’s ass…they would never shut up.

If 9/11 was an act of war..why did we not respond to the country of origin? Saudi Arabia? Of course there will always be those people bent on taking from the rich..or envious of our freedoms,
And nobody is suggesting that America bury it’s head in the sand…but you like so many others have not separated the Taliban from Al Queda,,they have different agendas.
Please note there are about 6 conservatives left in the US…there is a reason for that..our financial system is in ruins and our world Image an embarrassment..thanks to the boys of the past 8 years.
There is no liberal hate America group, rather a fundamental notion that the mistakes of the past shall not be repeated..that government needs to be more open and examined ..and mistakes
owned by those who made them….Mr. O will do his best to repair the enormous damage…I have to believe he’ll do a better job than his predecessors.
To answer your question more directly..O has not released more torture info because it would not help our image or his political process..mistakes were made by both parties..
There is no evidence other then Dick’s promise that torture ever produced results…I do not advocate kid gloves for those who would harm us..but bottom line..Israel, the most
threatened nation in the world stopped torture years ago…BECAUSE IT DOEN’T ****ING WORK

David Brooks Sums it Up

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/22/opinion/22brooks.html?_r=1

Saturday, May 23, 2009

Torture

Richie (s) keep asking about torture and why we Conservatives so strongly support the former administration.

Let us be crystal clear. I do not support torture as retribution and as I have often stated, I would stand at the gates of any white house for which there was any suggestion that it was carried out for political reasons. Nor was this Abu Ghraib.

What causes us not to criticize the torture of 3 captured terrorists is that it was clearly done to prevent eminent American deaths. This fact is what was so eloquently described by the former VP.

The other Richie in the past described 9/11 as an act carried out by a limited group, not a "war"...horseshit!

What pisses us Conservatives off is that the Liberal minds who have taken over the Democratic party will not face that there are those who wish to destroy our country and no amount of "placation" will satisfy them and so they put politics above country and their head in the sand.

In fact, lets just speak plainly. The liberal hate America crowd supported and finally has its savior who is hell bent on apologizing for our way of life. He was marinated in the broth of the unrepentant terrorist and was never proud of this country and plans to "bring it down". However, realities are beginning to cause stress for the Golden Boy. Even the most liberal President ever is beginning to understand that protecting our country is messy and fraught with difficult decisions, made even more difficult by his lack of experience except in the Ivory Tower.

In retrospect, the Bush administration did an admirable job on the war on terror. And before you become apoplectic and write away consider (and this is another issue which both pisses off and amuses Conservatives) things are a lot harder when you are running the show.

So now our patriotic former VP has had enough, enough with planning legal action against those making difficult decisions in the post mortem of 9/11, enough with criticizing patriots who did, even in the rear view mirror, a wonderful job.

As Mr. Cheney said, this was not an act of retribution.

So....Richies, some questions, YOU TWO NEVER DIRECTLY ANSWER QUESTIONS, if you were in similar circumstances what would you do? And don't say it did not work, it did!

If you had a suspect with plans to kill thousands in LA, and your best option was "EI", would you care about the comfort of the terrorists or the citizens?

Why doesn't the "O" administration release the results of the "EI"?

Lastly, before you two start the babble about our reputation, our standards and recruitment again I refer to Mr. Cheney's speech. What American value ask us to stand by and have terrorists acts committed on our soil, against our civilian populations?

Would you have just stood by or would you have asked and obtained legal authority and acted?

Come on now, the clock is ticking. Act! What would you do?

Answer the questions!

Friday, May 22, 2009

Dick Cheney an American Hero

YouTube - Cheney's Speech Part 1

YouTube - (Part 2/4) Dick Cheney's Bush-Era National Security Speech at AEI (American Enterprise Institute)

YouTube - (Part 3/4) Dick Cheney's Bush-Era National Security Speech at AEI (American Enterprise Institute)

YouTube - (Part 4/4) Dick Cheney's Bush-Era National Security Speech at AEI (American Enterprise Institute)

How can one view this speech and not be impressed by the courage, thoughtfulness and patriotism of Mr. Cheney?

Mr. Obama's bluster, indecision, political posturing and general apology to the world for protecting our country to follow.

Please view the speech directly, not through the lens of the revisionist commentators.

Wednesday, May 20, 2009



Massive tax increases, huge spending cuts or bankruptcy. Pick one (any one think it will be spending cuts?)


And lest we forget.


The president's budget low-balls discretionary spending in the out-years by probably hundreds of billions.


And this does not factor in the administration's ambitious plans to approach universal health coverage. Neither the White House nor CBO budgeted related costs or taxes in their tallies.


Considering that the "O" now wishes to actively manage the car and bank industry and soon will manage California.


We are seeing the end result of a bloated Socialistic form of government.
The people of California disagree with Richie, they are tired of paying for ever enlarging government.


Monday, May 18, 2009

Unanswered Questions

Okay, Doc, howzabout answering some questions? Try to be specific.

If Republicans want reduced spending and balanced budgets, why didn't they do that when they had a monopoly on power? 

Why didn't GOP reduce spending through the reconciliation process, just as they recklessly cut taxes?

Why did the GOP kick Pay/Go to the curb?

Why add prescription coverage entitlement without adding the revenue to pay for it?

How long should it take to balance the budget? Don't cop out - what is your estimate? How long should it take someone who inherits a collapsed economy with a $1.3 deficit?

How come our two supply side presidents enacted tax cuts which were followed by massive deficits? By the way - they were record deficits measured in nominal dollars or as a percentage of GDP. Why did that happen to them and to no one else in our lifetime?

I know the truth hurts, Doc. You can't solve your problem if you won't admit you have it. It is time to face up to the GOP legacy.

soak the rich

How Long Should it Take to Balance the Budget?

The GOP section has been complaining about Obama's budget. It begs the question, how long should it take to balance the budget? We all know that Bush inherited a surplus and promptly pissed it away in an orgy of tax cuts and spending. Obama inherited a $1.3T deficit. So, how long should it take him to balance the budget? That was Question #1.

Question #2 - Once the budget has been balanced, should we enact tax cuts to "let the people keep their own money" or should we allow surpluses to grow and pay off the existing debt?
IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- Why No Focus On Huge Ongoing De

and (and you gotta read this one)

Life is hard when your President, all those darn decisions. Lot's easier when everybody loves you.

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- Bear Necessity

Sunday, May 17, 2009

A post in reply to Rich's comment about the previous Post.

Please.

Untruthfulness, lying, fibbing, no matter how often you tell them remain...Untrue. Who said we were unconcerned about the debt?
What we did say, was that the deficit in the setting of the growing economy was not as bad based on a percent of GDP.
However, we have always wanted to limit the growth of government and government spending, but the class warfare promoted by the Democrats and their demagoguery prevented any meaningful reductions, To say otherwise is a bunch of bull.
You also always forget the dot.com crash, 9/11 and lots of other stuff. You also forget time and time again to mention the Republican take over of 94.
In truth this boils down to the Conservatives wanting less government, lower taxes, deregulation and the rule of law and the Democrats wanting otherwise. You seem to believe there is some nirvana with government collections at 20% of GDP. OK, you support higher taxes, we get it! But to imply that we Conservatives want a large debt is crazy, we want less spending, repeat after me, less spending. And...we have excoriated the Republicans for spending too much but have also stated many times...the Democrats will put the thing into overdrive which by gosh...THEY HAVE. For you to compare the current road to Bankruptcy with the deficit as a percentage of GDP compared to the previous administration is laughable. He is mortgaging our children's future to pay off political supporters and deincentivize the achievers in this country. I have stated my financial actions which mirror many others.

Could I ask you to please answer one question...now I know this will be hard...but don't blame Bush or attack the author, just answer one question...When does this stop? Honestly, if he gets all his taxes and spends all his money, do you really think the beast won't just come back and ask for more. Even if all your erroneous assumptions are true and the economy recovers and jobs are created, when does the genie get put back in the bottle? Are we not on a headlong path into bankruptcy unless we curtail spending? Let me remind you as your formulate your answer, the "O" could not even get 17 Billion cut at the height of his popularity.


Heaven help us!

Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Report Warns of Insolvency for Social Security, Medicare - washingtonpost.com

Sure wish the darn previous administration has tried to address this issue.

No problem, however, we have lots of money left over after the 3 trillion dollar budget with a deficit of 1 trillion (borrowing one dollar for every three we spend). We don't have any money left after "O" used the treasury to pay off all his "supporters"? I know...Bush made him do it!

He has bankrupted this country.

And the new Liberal mantra...and this is a really good one...Government health care is more efficient than private health care. Subject for a different post.

Saturday, May 9, 2009

Our Pro-Taxpayer President

It was intersting to see the right wing line up behind the hedge funds, many of whom only recently purchased Chrysler debt. Would they have preferred that Obama simply open up our checkbook and pay them what the free market would not? Our new president is clearly more careful than that with precious taxpayer dollars.

The last president added the huge entitlement of prescription drug coverage, without adding a penny in revenue to pay for it. The incremental expense over the first ten years was scored to exceed $500B (before passage of the bill), then $700B+ (just after passage) and now $1T+.  One of the provisions of the bill was that the Federal Government could NOT negotiate with the drug companies for discounted pricing. Imagine that - governments all over the world negotiate the best deal, as do private companies. Only one customer - the largest in the world - is prohibited from negotiating a discount. Thank you, George W Bush and the Republican Congress.

Tell me - who was more concerned with taxpayer dollars? Whose first priority rested with all of us - the taxpayers - and who looked out for someone else? Glance at the scoreboard and you shall see.

 

 
IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- Meltdown Was Perfect Stress Te.

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- How We're Killing Our 'Living .

Tax Boost Proposed for Estates, Firms - WSJ.com

What Congress Knew - WSJ.com

The Half-Penny Solution - WSJ.com

Demoting California - WSJ.com

Breaking Down the Auto Bailout

Op-Ed Columnist - The Harlem Miracle - NYTimes.com



But what is really important

Shirtless Biden Washes Trans Am In White House Driveway The Onion - America's Finest News Source

Friday, May 8, 2009

http://wwFont sizew.youtube.com/watch?v=Nn4IH3yng4k

Wow. That Didn't Take Long.

After all the whining, wimpering, crying, complaining, feet stomping, sobbing, and letter writing these Nancys have thrown in the towel. Just one week into bankruptcy. Wow. One more reason for the right wing to be proud.

http://www.freep.com/article/20090508/BUSINESS01/90508030/1002/BUSINESS/Chrysler+lenders+drop+bankruptcy+objections

I have a joke...

Rich will have a hard time applying either Baxter model to this one.

Remember folks, "things will be better now that the responsible party is in charge".

What a joke!!!!

Democrats Assail Obama's Hit List - washingtonpost.com

I have a dream

If taxes had been cut across the board, instead of repaying interest groups for their support, the money would have been in the system, jobs created, economy growing.

But no, the "O" needs to socialize America, channelling money to the "right" people.

And so starts the unraveling of the Obama Presidency.

Obama's budget apt to run into hard reality

IBDeditorials.com: Editorials, Political Cartoons, and Polls from Investor's Business Daily -- Chump Change

Thursday, May 7, 2009

Wednesday, May 6, 2009

Conservative definition #1

Conservatives have no issue with Science and Religion.

We can comprehend both. I can understand Evolution and understand how others may believe in Creationism. The vast majority of Conservatives understand that Evolution is science and Creationism is faith. Some cannot...and even those who most of us disagree with are welcome in our system belief.

What Conservatives must do is reassure, remind and reeducate that our belief system is based on personal freedom and responsibility which logically extends to a welcoming of all faiths.

Admitting fault, yes, we have allowed the perception of religious intolerance. Unfortunately the cards have been stacked against us, having acknowledged that point, it is similar to the tax protests. The media does not look for a representative sample.

Not long ago, Liberal was a dirty word. Now so is Republican. Well folks, I'm from the Republican wing of the Republican party and we are taking it back from those who wish us to become more understanding of less personal freedom and self responsibility.

The Netherlands are upset and surprised by the Obama slur

This was sent to me by a good friend of mine who happens to be a tax lawyer in the Netherlands.
http://www.nrc.nl/international/article2232958.ece/Netherlands_surprised_at_Obama_tax_haven_slur
It is utterly amazing how many mistakes and untruths our President utters on a daily basis. I thought he was so smart. I am sure that they meant the Netherlands Antilles which has been autonomous from the European country the Netherlands since 1954!
http://www.worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/namerica/caribb/an.htm
Words do have meaning, especially the names of individual countries.

Barack Obama & the DC School Voucher Program

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l7FS5B-CynM

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/04/10/AR2009041003073.html

They are fighting back.

http://www.dcchildrenfirst.org/website/download.asp?id=52

Could this be another example of the BS that Barry spouted to get elected and then when push comes to shove he does whatever the union wants. Remember the transparency that was promised? Killing this voucher program was hidden in the stimulus bill. So much for these families "hope".

The new standard for Supreme Court justices

"Now, the process of selecting someone to replace Justice (David) Souter is among my most serious responsibilities as president, so I will seek somebody with a sharp and independent mind and a record of excellence and integrity. I will seek someone who understands that justice isn't about some abstract legal theory or footnote in a casebook; it is also about how our laws affect the daily realities of people's lives, whether they can make a living and care for their families, whether they feel safe in their homes and welcome in their own nation. I view that quality of empathy, of understanding and identifying with people's hopes and struggles, as an essential ingredient for arriving at just decisions and outcomes." --President Barack Obama

What? So now we see the bedrock behind liberalism. Who cares about written law or the Constitution? I just care about how people "feel". Supreme Court justices should forget about the law and use "empathy". I have news for Barry. This is what the legislative branch is for not the Judicial branch. Are you sure that he graduated from Harvard Law School? It is not the function of the court to make new laws based on empathy and feelings. The courts "just" decisions and outcomes do become the law.

"That President Obama has made 'empathy' with certain groups one of his criteria for choosing a Supreme Court nominee is a dangerous sign of how much further the Supreme Court may be pushed away from the rule of law and toward even more arbitrary judicial edicts to advance the agenda of the left and set it in legal concrete, immune from the democratic process. Would you want to go into court to appear before a judge with 'empathy' for groups A, B and C, if you were a member of groups X, Y or Z? Nothing could be further from the rule of law." --Hoover Institution economist Thomas Sowell

"There is a reason that Lady Justice wears a blindfold. Justice is supposed to be blind to the race, gender, finances, politics -- and every other 'empathy'-eliciting -- characteristic of those who seek it in good faith." --columnist Carol Platt Liebau

Tuesday, May 5, 2009

Is it moral to take away the only chance that some have at a quality education?

Our President has stated that "education" is one of the pillars of his new policies. It appears that this policy means more of the leftist approach of throwing more money at the problem so as to show their undying support for the teachers union. This way the union will continue to support Democrat candidates. Quid Pro Quo. Who really cares about disadvantaged children getting educated anyway. Isn't it better to keep them stupid so that they will continue to do as they are told?
The Democrats' passage of an amendment tucked into the omnibus spending bill speaks volumns as to what they really believe in. Sponsored by Sen. Richard Durbin (D., Ill.), the amendment effectively ended the Opportunity Scholarship Program, a lifeline now used by more than 1,700 schoolchildren to escape one of America's most miserable public school systems.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124148314511885437.html#mod=djemEditorialPage
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124147923132785121.html#mod=djemEditorialPage
Please read these and discuss the morality of this administration and the Democrats in Congress who voted for this. Remember the commercial about the Negro College Fund? "The mind is a terrible thing to waste" It appears that the Dems believe that a Negro mind is a terrible thing to educate. Rich and Terry please defend the Democrats here. It is my sincere belief that one of the only ways we are going to rid this country of the poor and disadvantaged is to start properly educating the inner city young and stressing the importance of a quality education. I believe it is much more important than "green jobs", and health care reform. If we are going to pump billions into education than let us target it at programs like these that are working. To continue to allow these failed union policies to continue which have resulted in utter failure is truly immoral.

- Sen. Durbin. In his floor statement defending his killer amendment, Mr. Durbin admitted he chose Catholic schools for his own children. "If I entrusted my own children to [private education], I certainly believe in it." But he went on to say this choice should be there only for Americans who pay for it. Wow "this choice should be there only for Americans who pay for it". Can we start applying this standard to many of the other programs that this President and Congress are shoving down our throat. Should we apply this to health care? Are these Durbin's views on a college education? The hypocrisy of the left is in plain view for all to see. The Emperor has no clothes! The only question is whether or not the left wing media will cover the rally.

More extreme hypocrisy from Barry

When Barry came out to announce his new interrogation standards he said the the US "lost its moral bearings" under President Bush. This coming from a man who thinks it is moral not to torture a self confessed terrorist who also admitted to being responsible for the planning of the deaths of thousands of innocents. On the other hand he doesn't have any problems with the morality of allowing women to terminate the lives of the unborn even during late term. This is a man who learned a lot of his moralistic beliefs from an extreme anti-American preacher in Reverend Wright.
In making the statement about the US losing it's moral bearings Barry is saying that aggressive interrogation is immoral and that they are a major departure from American past policy. I believe it is frivolous for Barry to claim that it was an immoral decision to subject three self confessed terrorists to waterboarding for the purpose of obtaining information that could potentially save innocent lives, where the decision is made with the good faith belief that the information cannot be obtained through less harsh means given the time constraints of KSM's statement "soon you will know". The word soon has a pretty clear meaning. Webster defines it as "in the near future". If it is immoral to balance the safety and lives of Americans with the use of methods that might trouble some than I believe it is safe to say that almost every President who has ever held the office is immoral.

The other part of the statement about "bearings" refers to past American policy being very different that the policy followed under the Bush Administration. There is a new piece in the Yale Law Review which points out that this part of Barry's statement is also false. I will post the conclusion of the article in the comment section. I will leave here by just pointing out that our President makes false statements every single day. This is certainly a big change from the Bush administration. This administration is about a transparent as the lead shield that Superman used to block the effects of kryptonite.

Barry's favorite blogger

Well it has been confirmed that our President reads Andrew Sullivan's Daily Dish, well daily. So we now know that we can expect more falsehoods, remember the false quote attributed to Churchill, based on a source that does absolutely no research but instead just spouts leftist rhetoric. Now the genious Andrew Sullivan is trying to diminish the defense of "aggressive interrogation" by claiming that Harry Truman was a War Criminal and also immoral for authorizing the dropping of nuclear bombs on Japan. Mr. Sullivan in a rare display of research even went to an outside source for his argument, "a Japanese legal review". So a Japanese legal review argues that the US committed war crimes by ending the war in the way we did. I have now seen it all. I used to think that Michael Savge was extreme when he would say that "liberalism is a mental disorder" but over the last 100+ days I have observed proof positive that in fact Michael Savage is correct. Again no attempt to put the decision into its proper context. http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/2009/05/trumans-war-crimes.html

In his Prague speech during the Apologypalooza tour Barry stated: "[A]s the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act." This infers that we should feel guilty about saving the lives of millions of American soldiers, the estimated deaths that would result from an invasion of mainland Japan, by dropping nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.
http://www.pjtv.com/video/Afterburner_/Jon_Stewart%2C_War_Criminals_%26_The_True_Story_of_the_Atomic_Bombs/1808/;jsessionid=abckNkTdX-KCWbaYDT_ds
This is an excellent defense of our actions in dropping the bombs. If you want your children to know American history and be able to defend the country they live in when they are exposed to the liberal brainwashing that they will be subject to in our school systems you should show this to them as well. I have sent this link on to my two girls.

It also shows that Jon Stewart is another idiot who did absolutely no research to back up his opinions. It is very troubling that men like him have such an influence over our youth.

Monday, May 4, 2009

A really good article, worth reading by both sides.

Bush's Lawyers Strike Back - The Daily Beast

Rush Limbaugh (gasp)

RUSH: I need to play you an audio sound bite. Last December, on thisprogram, December 22, three days before Christmas, I had a phone call. I took the phone call.

Sunday, May 3, 2009

Fareed Zakaria GPS - Robert Gates

Gates was on CNN's excellent Sunday program. If you don't watch Zakaria, you ought to. Gates is the consummate professional. His thoughtful remarks yesterday should make you less concerned about the so called "apology tour". He also offered some confidence regarding nuclear proliferation and the USA's position in the world. 

Saturday, May 2, 2009

Barry Hussein Soprano and his loan sharks

http://islandturtle.blogspot.com/2009/05/white-house-uses-strong-arm-tactics-to.html

Those if you who have been following this blog lately know that I have been horrified by the way Barry and his merry band have been dealing with the private investors in the corporate bonds for both GM and Chrysler. Once you read the above article you have to really start worrying about the future of the American economy.

Obama Approval Index History

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/obama_administration/obama_approval_index_history

It is now at +1 between strongly approve and strongly disapprove and trending towards the negative.

Rich and Terry here is a new trend to concentrate on

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/congressional_ballot/generic_congressional_ballot

Obama Lied; The Economy Died

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/political_commentary/commentary_by_tony_blankley/obama_lied_the_economy_died

Another Bush policy backpeddle by Barry

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/us/politics/02gitmo.html?_r=3&partner=rss&emc=rss

“The more they look at it,” said one official, “the more commissions don’t look as bad as they did on Jan. 20.”

Isn't it funny how this got out on the weekend in hopes that everyone might not notice the obvious flip flop here. I think it will become very interesting to keep score as to how many Bush administration anti terror policies Barry ends up going back to.

Friday, May 1, 2009

Scowcroft Echos Baxter

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124112759652674705.html

Best Stock Market Since 1991

As the market tanked in January and February, Mark + Jim were quick to point to Obama as the cause. We have now had the best rally in 18 years and our two uber-conservates have been quiet about the market. What gives? 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124113495374375243.html

FEMA pulls Minnesota crisis coloring book

http://www.startribune.com/local/44005837.html?elr=KArksLckD8EQDUoaEyqyP4O:DW3ckUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aULPQL7PQLanchO7DiUsr

So we are about to release photos of terrorists being interrogated and then we do this.

I think that next to every photo released of interrogation techniques there should be a photo of a plane crashing into the World Trade Center tower. Sort of like a "fairness doctrine" so that the debate is a fair one. That would be transparency to me not the transparency of releasing memos that help our case but not ones that might hurt our case.

I love this sarcastic comment to the article:
"yoder64
please,Get a life. Everything is going to be ok. your man is in charge now and he is going to save you from your miserable existence."

Now that is priceless!

Didn't Barry send the Churchill bust back?

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/northamerica/usa/barackobama/4623148/Barack-Obama-sends-bust-of-Winston-Churchill-on-its-way-back-to-Britain.html

This from the article: "Churchill has less happy connotations for Mr Obama than those American politicians who celebrate his wartime leadership. It was during Churchill's second premiership that Britain suppressed Kenya's Mau Mau rebellion. Among Kenyans allegedly tortured by the colonial regime included one Hussein Onyango Obama, the President's grandfather."

Oh my gosh more torturing under Churchill's watch!

One can only wonder why Barry made that statement during the press conference. It certainly wasn't because the Press was putting any pressure on him!

Where does our Presidnet get hi history facts?

No wonder Rich likes Barry so much he does just about the same amount of research before he makes an important statement. I pointed out the other day that during his press conference Barry made this statement.
"I was struck by an article that I was reading the other day talking about the fact that the British during World War II, when London was being bombed to smithereens, had 200 or so detainees. And Churchill said, "We don't torture," when the entire British -- all of the British people were being subjected to unimaginable risk and threat."
http://richardlangworth.com/2009/04/obama-misquotes-churchill/
From an an expert Churchill historian. The best line in the entire artcle in my opinion is this one.
"While Churchill did express such sentiments with regard to prison inmates, he said no such thing about prisoners of war, enemy combatants or terrorists, who were in fact tortured by British interrogators during World War II."

His research shows that prisoners of war were tortured by the British. So it appears that our President gets his history lessons from left wing bloggers who make things up in order to support their political views. Lets all count the days until the Barry adoring media does some actual research and ask some actual questions of this President instead of the fawning sofball type questions that he got the other night. What is the over under as to the number of days it takes the NY Times to point this obvious mistake by Barry out? What do you think the over under would have been for the NY Times if President Bush had made the same error?

On Point

Can getting hair plugs cause something like Tourette's Syndrome?

Is it possible that when they inserted the hair plugs into Joe's scalp that they drilled down too deep and did something to his brain that causes him to contantly make these public gaffes? I have to say I really feel great that he is a heart beat away from being President. Please don't give us the "he is better that Sarah Palin whine". That is an opinion and not a fact.