Friday, July 31, 2009

Last regards to Walter...........

I usually don’t add on 3 blogs in one day but when it comes to Satan’s Anchorman, it’s worth noting that he did as much to secure defeat in Vietnam as anyone and the aftermath is still felt today whether you’re a sweatshop worker still toiling under that Soviet-backed communist regime, the bones littering the killing fields of Cambodia, or a Latin American strongman threatening to overthrow a democracy. The precedent stands when a US President sits on his hands.

The interview with NV Colonel Bui Tin from the Wall Street Journal in 1995:
Q: Was the American antiwar movement important to Hanoi’s victory?

A: It was essential to our strategy. Support of the war from our rear was completely secure while the American rear was vulnerable. Every day our leadership would listen to world news over the radio at 9 a.m. to follow the growth of the American antiwar movement. Visits to Hanoi by people like Jane Fonda, and former Attorney General Ramsey Clark and ministers gave us confidence that we should hold on in the face of battlefield reverses. We were elated when Jane Fonda, wearing a red Vietnamese dress, said at a press conference that she was ashamed of American actions in the war and that she would struggle along with us.

Q: Did the Politburo pay attention to these visits?

A: Keenly.

Q: Why?

A: Those people represented the conscience of America. The conscience of America was part of its war-making capability, and we were turning that power in our favor. America lost because of its democracy; through dissent and protest it lost the ability to mobilize a will to win.
Of course, the “Conscience of America” is a direct reference to Walter Cronkite. Though they could win one battle they knew they could not win the war without the help of Cronkite. And boy, did they ever get it. He may have been wearing a suit on tv but he might has well have been dressed in a pair of black pajamas. Indeed, Walter Cronkite was the Original Pajamas Media.
It’s no wonder that whenever America faces an enemy - be they an entrenched Marxist dictatorship, a teetering rogue nation, or a pack of Islamofascist hyenas that they can never underestimate what an ally they have in the American media.
For every Cronkite dead, there’s a thousand aspiring J-school students clamoring or MSNBC anchors willing to throw a sympathetic hug on a terrorist or a dictator and spit in our country’s face.

America lets lay this all out!

1. First we have a black professional who blew a top when confronted by a white police officer who was just doing his duty in making sure that a house was not broken into.
In that process the owner/renter became obnoxious yelling out racist remarks at the white police officer.
The white police officer tries to settle him down to no avail and has to take him in for unruly conduct to an officer.=============================
2. Then we have the leader of our nation…who gets before a television camera and while looking at the camera and without knowing any facts in the situation but just knowing that his BFF black friend was involved with a “white” police officer…and he says something completely degrading to the Presidential position he occupies. A position whereby he was elected to represent and protect “all” Americans…not just black ones.
He jumped back into his racist skin and spoke out of turn and lambasted an entire police force that is being paid to “enforce” the laws of our great nation and said that they acted “stupidly”!
So who needs to apologize here?===================================
The two black racists are the ones that jumped to conclusions and went off…way off…and used racist and demeaning remarks about police officers in general.
The white police officer…was only doing his job!
But, again, America the two black racists are above giving an apology for their racism…that is why racism still exists within the black community because of poor examples and enablers like this!==============================
A teaching moment? Hardly…more like a bad example of being egotistical in thinking you are a victim, yet again, and above apologizing for being wrong and being racist!
Just another day in the life of black America…the victims of police brutality!
Not in all cases America…and specifically not in this one!

Selling TV's don't want to see Barry!

Carroll woman's answer to highly visible Obama: Selling her televisionsBy DOUGLAS BURNSStaff WriterWednesday, July 29, 2009A 78-year-old Carroll woman says she's so tired of seeing President Barack Obama on the airwaves that she's selling her television sets - two of them.Deloris Nissen, a retired nurses' aide and former Kmart employee who was raised on a farm near Audubon, placed a classified advertisement with The Daily Times Herald for Friday's paper.In the $5.50 ad, Nissen tells readers she has two television sets for sale.The reason: "Obama on every channel and station."In an interview Nissen said she is serious about selling two TVs - and genuine about her disgust with what she believes to be an overexposed president."I just got tired of watching him on every channel," Nissen said. "I thought, my gosh, does he ever stay at the White House?"Nissen, who voted for U.S. Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., in the 2008 presidential election, said she could live with seeing Obama come on television to make serious announcements. But he seems to be on all the time, Nissen said.When the president does appear on a channel she happens to be watching, Nissen said, she quickly turns."I have the remote real handy," Nissen said. "I have the batteries. I'm ready for him."Nissen's annoyance with the president as a frequent presence on her television doesn't mean she'll abandon the medium altogether.She's keeping a bigger flat-screen television and selling an older 20-inch Sony and possibly a 13-inch set."It's too heavy," Nissen said of the 20-inch TV. "I can't handle it anymore."That said, she doesn't plan on selling it for less than $100 - even if Obama was just on Tuesday pitching his health-care-reform plans.Obama's own advisers and political observers across the ideological spectrum have for months debated whether the now popular president is overexposed.For her part, Nissen said she expects to take some flack for the advertisement in her local paper. After all, Obama did win Iowa and Carroll County in the 2008 election.But she's not worried about any criticism."I'm an old lady, and I don't care," Nissen said.

Sunday, July 26, 2009

President Obama, Meet Gunner Hawkins » The Foundry

President Obama, Meet Gunner Hawkins » The Foundry

Shared via AddThis

Barry blames GOP for stalled health bills

Barry blames GOP for stalled health bills

By Stick it to liberals guy
Posted: 07/26/09 09:16 AM [ET]
Barry sharply criticized Republicans on Tuesday for following a “familiar script” to “block healthcare reform.” The president, seeking to prod the Democratic-controlled Congress to show significant progress on healthcare reform before the August recess, directed blame at the GOP for the stalled legislation.
Barry blasted the "familiar script" of Republicans who "have openly declared their intention to block healthcare reform."

My question is how Barry can keep blaming Bush and the Republicans. Bush has been gone for 6 months, Democrats control everything right down to the media, and how can they block anything?Republicans have lambasted Democrats’ efforts to pass healthcare reform, but they have noted that with comfortable majorities in both chambers and control of the White House, Democrats have the ability to pass their legislation.The problem for Democratic leaders is that blue dog Democrats have balked at what has been proposed, threatening to reject the bills if they are brought to the House and Senate floors. They like their insurance plan, and cozy jobs they would hate to lose them 2010.In remarks delivered at the White House Rose Garden before he was scheduled to meet with Democratic members of the Energy and Commerce Committee, Barry said, "I look forward to meeting with several members of the Congress who are working to pass health insurance reform that will bring down long-term costs, expand coverage and provide more choice." I say if passed will end up with one choice.Earlier in the day, the Energy and Commerce Committee postponed a scheduled markup until Wednesday. That move, coupled with comments from Majority Leader Stupid Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) on Tuesday, has triggered widespread speculation on Capitol Hill that the House may not vote on healthcare reform before the August recess.Hoyer told reporters, "If we get consensus, we'll move on it. If we don't get consensus, I don't think staying in session is necessarily necessary. We'll see. I'll make that decision next week."Meanwhile, the Senate Finance Committee still hasn’t released its healthcare reform bill, making passage unlikely in the upper chamber anytime soon. I am betting never!Yet the Barry said again Tuesday that he is confident he will be able to sign a bill this year. But he did not mention his initial goal of having both the House and Senate pass their respective measures before the recess."I can guarantee that when we do pass this bill, history won't record the demands for endless delay or endless debate in the news cycle," Barry said. "They will record the hard work done by members of Congress to pass this bill and the fact that people who sent us here to Washington insisted on change." I can say if Barry doesn’t get this crap pushed through he is done.

I thought Jimmy Carter was the worst president ever, well Barry takes the prize. He wants sign a bill that he does not even know what’s in it. Well I have not read all of it, but what I have read it is crazy, to say least.
I will not let my tax money go to kill babies and old people. The government can barely deliver a letter, and it’s all junk. I sure don’t want them messing with the best healthcare system in the world. It has its problems but what doesn’t, as far as the 50 million without health insurance, I say bull. I am a land lord and have to beat on doors from time to time to collect rent. They probably don’t have insurance like they don’t have their rent. While standing and talking to the tenant I notice that they have a Blackberry, high dollar sneakers, computer, flat screen tv, several gaming consoles, lots of bling, nails done. Somehow no money for rent and I bet my bottom dollar no insurance. I have what I call a hospitalization plan with a fairly high deductible, and a health savings account. It is not cheap but within most people’s budget. Most people that don’t have insurance is because they don’t want to pay for it. It’s not about healthcare anyway it’s all about Democrat control. I don’t want it and will fight against tooth and nail against it.

Saturday, July 25, 2009

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll

Posted using ShareThis


Don't know if you saw the TV news clip about two week ago about Barbara Boxer admonishing a Brigadier General because he addressed her as Ma'am and not Senator before a Senate hearing. Anyway this is a letter from a Guard Aviator and Captain for Alaska Air Lines. He hits the nail directly on the head. Maybe we all should send a copy of this letter to the SENATOR

Here is my final draft to Barbara Boxer. Please give it your widest
dissemination. I want the world to know at least one scoundrel who
masquerades as a wise solon and a congress in whose hand $trillions are
spent without even reading the bills.


You were so right on when you scolded the general on TV for using the
term, "ma'am," instead of "Senator." After all, in the military, "ma'am"
is a term of respect when addressing a female of superior rank or position.

The general was totally wrong. You are not a person of superior rank
or position. You are a member of one of the world's most corrupt
organizations, the U.S. Senate, equaled only by the U.S. House of

Congress is a cesspool of liars, thieves, inside traders, traitors,
drunks (one who killed a staffer, yet is still revered), criminals, and
other low level swine who, as individuals (not all, but many), will do
anything to enhance their lives, fortunes and power, all at the expense
of the People of the United States and its Constitution, in order to be
continually re-elected. Many democrats even want American troops killed
by releasing photographs. How many of you could honestly say, "We pledge
our lives, our fortunes and our sacred honor"? None? One? Two?
Your reaction to the general shows several things. First is your
abysmal ignorance of all things military. Your treatment of the general
shows you to be an elitist of the worst kind. When the general entered
the military (as most of us who served) he wrote the government a blank
check, offering his life to protect your derriere now safely and
comfortably ensconced in a 20 thousand dollar leather chair, paid for by
the general's taxes. You repaid him for this by humiliating him in front
of millions.

Second is your puerile character, lack of sophistication, and
arrogance which borders on the hubristic. This display of brattish
behavior shows you to be a virago, termagant, harridan, nag, scold or
shrew, unfit for your position, regardless of the support of the
unwashed, uneducated masses who have made California into the laughing
stock of the nation.

What I am writing, Senator, are the same thoughts countless millions
of Americans have toward Congress, but who lack the energy, ability or
time to convey them. Under the democrats, some don't even have the 44
cents to buy the stamp. Regardless of their thoughts, most realize
politicians are pretty much the same, and will vote for the one who will
bring home the most bacon, even if they do consider how corrupt that
person is.

Lord Acton (1834 - 1902) so aptly charged, "Power tends to corrupt
and absolute power corrupts absolutely." Unbeknownst to you and your
colleagues, Mr. Power has had his way with all of you, and we are all
the worse for it.

Finally Senator, I, too, have a title. It is "Right Wing Extremist
Potential Terrorist Threat." It is not of my choosing, but was given to
me by your Secretary of Homeland Security, Janet Napolitano. And you
were offended by "ma'am"?

Have a day. Cheers!

Jim Hill
16808 - 103rd Avenue Court East

South Hill, WA 98375

Thursday, July 23, 2009


Your America
Below you will find the information you need to contact the leaders of Your America:
To find your Senator, click here.To find your Representative, click here.
Or call the Capitol Switchboard at 202-224-3121.
House Speaker Nancy PelosiEmail: 202-225-4965
Senate Majority Leader Harry ReidEmail: senator_reid@reid.senate.govPhone: 202-224-3542
President Barack ObamaTo Email President Obama, click here.Phone: 202-456-1111
Homeland Security Secretary Janet NapolitanoMail: Department of Homeland SecurityWashington, DC 20528Phone: 202-282-8495——————————————————————–I started this website to provide my readers with a place where they can get the facts on the most important issues facing all of us, and a few laughs. To be well-informed is to be well-prepared.
It’s also about how you and I can make a difference. We need to start somewhere. Call your senator, congressman, buy a conservative sticker or shirt. Be ready to to debate a liberal. I think their are too many closet conservatives, afraid someone might confront you, key your car. Screw them this a war and you better understand the balance of of what is good in this country is going to be lost for, your children, and grandchildren. If you you don't make a stand your a coward. When you get this socialism crap, and you do not have a job and did not do one thing to stop it, then you got what deserve. You might as well vote Obama in for a second term.

Tuesday, July 21, 2009

What really happened

What really happened

Shared via AddThis

Obama Whitehouse Snubs 5

Obama Whitehouse Snubs 5 & 6 Year Olds For Pittsburgh Steelers

Posted using ShareThis

Palin signs state sovereignty resolution

Palin signs state sovereignty resolution
If Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin does decide to run for president in 2012, and then ends up winning, things are going to get mighty awkward once she's in office. Earlier this month, Palin signed a resolution passed by her state's legislature that aligns her with the "state sovereignty" movement, a growing force on the right-wing fringe.
In short, the resolution refers to the Constitution's 10th Amendment -- that's the one that reserves any powers not expressly given to the federal government to the people or the states -- and says that the feds have been encroaching on Alaska's rights.
"The Alaska State Legislature hereby claims sovereignty for the state under the 10th Amendment to the Constitution of the United States over all powers not otherwise enumerated and granted to the federal government," the resolution says. "This resolution serves as Notice and Demand to the federal government to cease and desist, effective immediately, mandates that are beyond the scope of these constitutionally delegated powers."
As I wrote when Texas Gov. Rick Perry endorsed a similar resolution in his own state, resolutions like this one are on shaky legal ground: Supporters of the movement are often wrong about the law and what Congress is allowed to do under the Constitution. Plus, the resolution is completely toothless -- all the legislature is doing is demanding something.
Well, that's not completely true -- they're probably also being a little annoying. The resolution specifically provides that a copy should be sent to President Obama, Vice President Biden, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, every member of Congress, the presiding officer of all other state legislatures and all 49 other governors.

Senate Democrats Battle Concealed Weapons Amendment - Political News -

Senate Democrats Battle Concealed Weapons Amendment - Political News -

Posted using ShareThis

Healthcare Is a Good, Not a Right

Healthcare Is a Good, Not a Right

Shared via AddThis

Friday, July 17, 2009

All Those Planning On Signing A Massive Healthcare Bill Into Law, Please Step Forward ...
... not so fast, Obama.
Rausmussen reports today that 50% oppose (35% favor) a government health insurance company:
Just 35% of U.S. voters now support the creation of a government health insurance company to compete with private health insurers.
A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey shows that 50% of voters oppose setting up a government health insurance company as President Obama and congressional Democrats are now proposing in their health care reform plan. Fifteen percent (15%) are undecided.
Those wouldn't be good numbers for a president whose poll numbers were soaring. Obama is decidedly not that, but rather, one whose poll numbers are plummeting in the same manner that stock market averages did in the wake of his inauguration. And while Sotomayor has received a small bounce in the polls, the general view of her is still unfavorable:
Forty-five percent (45%) hold a favorable opinion of Sotomayor while 46% hold an unfavorable view. Thus, President Urkel is pissing away much (i.e. desperately) needed political capital on a Supreme Court Justice who almost certainly is going to turn out to be a flaming, activist liberal on the bench. Not very judicious use of the same when you've got a huge fight upcoming to completely overhaul the U.S. health care system.To make matters worse, HuffPo has this little gem this morning:
The whip list was obtained by Joan McCarter, a DailyKos contributing editor. It names fifty members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus (CPC) who have firmly pledged to oppose any bill that doesn't meet the group's standards. Without those fifty votes, Democrats would be unable to pass the reform effort without Republican support. (Once Judy Chu is sworn in, there will be 256 Democrats, and one "closet Democrat"; 218 are needed for passage, leaving Democrats 12 votes short.)Wow. House Republicans have generally shown more discipline than Senate Republicans, so losing 50 Democrats might doom their chances of getting this bill passed. And with the poll numbers regarding health care reform trending the way they are, the signs are ominous for Obama's chances of getting a finished bill on his desk (translation: good for America). The pressure to vote against this bill is going to be immense for house members, at least for those that would like to be re-elected (i.e most of them).The fight's hardly over, in fact it's only just begun. Vigilance is never optional, it's always mandatory. But the above news should be encouraging to those who want to kill this proposed monstrosity. If anything, the above indicates that there is blood in the water. Time to go in for the kill and put this thing out of its misery, before it puts the American economy firmly in its misery. And as an added bonus, we can deal a huge blow to the Democrats socialist agenda.Charge!!

Posted by thirteen28 at 12:30 PM 0 comments Links to this post
Labels: , ,


No apology for writing this! ! ! After hearing they want to sing the National Anthem in Spanish - enough is enough. Nowhere did they sing it in Italian, Polish, Irish (Celtic), German or any other language because of immigration. It was written by Francis Scott Key and should be sung word for word the way it was written. The news broadcasts even gave the translation -- not even close. NOT sorry if this offends anyone because this is MY COUNTRY - IF IT IS YOUR COUNTRY SPEAK UP -- please pass this along.I am not against immigration -- just come through like everyone else. Get a sponsor; have a place to lay your head; have a job; pay your taxes, live by the rules AND LEARN THE LANGUAGE as all other immigrants have in the past -- and GOD BLESS AMERICA!
PART OF THE PROBLEMThink about this: If you don't want to forward this for fear of offending someone -- YOU'RE PART OF THE PROBLEM!It is Time for America to Speak up

About time that "We the People" take back America!

Charley Reese has been a journalist for 49 years.

545 PEOPLEBy Charlie Reese
Politicians are the only people in the world who create problems and then campaign against them.
Have you ever wondered, if both the Democrats and the Republicans are against deficits, WHY do we have deficits?
Have you ever wondered, if all the politicians are against inflation and high taxes, WHY do we have inflation and high taxes?
You and I don't propose a federal budget. The president does.
You and I don't have the Constitutional authority to vote on appropriations.. The House of Representatives does.
You and I don't write the tax code, Congress does.
You and I don't set fiscal policy, Congress does..
You and I don't control monetary policy, the Federal Reserve Bank does.
One hundred senators, 435 congressmen, one president, and nine Supreme Court justices 545 human beings out of the 300 million are directly, legally, morally, and individually responsible for the domestic problems that plague this country.
I excluded the members of the Federal Reserve Board because that problem was created by the Congress. In 1913, Congress delegated its Constitutional duty to provide a sound currency to a federally chartered, but private, central bank.
I excluded all the special interests and lobbyists for a sound reason. They have no legal authority. They have no ability to coerce a senator, a congressman, or a president to do one cotton-picking thing. I don't care if they offer a politician $1 million dollars in cash. The politician has the power to accept or reject it. No matter what the lobbyist promises, it is the legislator's responsibility to determine how he votes..
Those 545 human beings spend much of their energy convincing you that what they did is not their fault. They cooperate in this common con regardless of party.
What separates a politician from a normal human being is an excessive amount of gall. No normal human being would have the gall of a Speaker, who stood up and criticized the President for creating deficits. The president can only propose a budget. He cannot force the Congress to accept it.
The Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land, gives sole responsibility to the House of Representatives for originating and approving appropriations and taxes. Who is the speaker of the House? Nancy Pelosi. She is also the leader of the majority party. She and fellow House members, not the president, can approve any budget they want.. If the president vetoes it, they can pass it over his veto if they agree to.
It seems inconceivable to me that a nation of 300 million cannot replace 545 people who stand convicted -- by present facts -- of incompetence and irresponsibility. I can't think of a single domestic problem that is not traceable directly to those 545 people. When you fully grasp the plain truth that 545 people exercise the power of the federal government, then it must follow that what exists is what they want to exist.
If the tax code is unfair, it's because they want it unfair.
If the budget is in the red, it's because they want it in the red .
If the Army & Marines are in IRAQ , it's because they want them in IRAQ
If they do not receive social security but are on an elite retirement plan not available to the people, it's because they want it that way..
There are no insolvable government problems.
Do not let these 545 people shift the blame to bureaucrats, whom they hire and whose jobs they can abolish; to lobbyists, whose gifts and advice they can reject; to regulators, to whom they give the power to regulate and from whom they can take this power. Above all, do not let them con you into the belief that there exists disembodied mystical forces like "the economy," "inflation," or "politics" that prevent them from doing what they take an oath to do.
Those 545 people, and they alone, are responsible.
They, and they alone, have the power.
They, and they alone, should be held accountable by the people who are their bosses.
Provided the voters have the gumption to manage their own employees.
We must vote ALL of them out of office and clean up their mess! Whatever you do, election, DO NOT RE-ELECT ANY OF THESE INDIVIDUALS!!!!!

Sunday, July 19, 2009

Pray for his return.

Idaho town prays for return of captured US soldier
HAILEY, Idaho (AP) - Friends and family of an Idaho soldier who was captured in Afghanistan prayed for his safe return Sunday, shaken by the image of the frightened young private in a Taliban video posted online.
Pfc. Bowe R. Bergdahl, 23, was serving with an Alaska-based infantry regiment earlier this month when he vanished, just five months after arriving in Afghanistan. He was serving at a base near the border with Pakistan in an area known to be a Taliban stronghold.
Bergdahl is from Hailey, a town of about 7,000 people in central Idaho where he worked as a barista and was active in ballet. A sign hangs in the window of Zaney's River Street Coffee House says "Get Bowe Back," and a message inside asked customers to "Join all of us at Zaney's holding light for our friend."
Bergdahl's family issued a statement asking people to keep the soldier in their thoughts and prayers, but told The Associated Press that the family was requesting media respect their privacy.
Neighbors and others in the community have known for weeks that Bergdahl had been captured, but said the family urged them not to talk about the kidnapping out of fear that publicity would compromise his safety. Idaho Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter told the AP that he had been working to keep the soldier's name quiet until it was officially released.
In the video posted Saturday on a Web site pointed out by the Taliban, Bergdahl says his name and his hometown. The Pentagon confirmed his identity Sunday.
"We hope and pray for our son's safe return to his comrades and then to our family, and we appreciate all the support and expressions of sympathy shown to us by our family members, our friends and others across the nation," Bob Bergdahl, the soldier's father, said in a statement issued through the Department of Defense.
The family, described by neighbors as deeply private, lives six miles west of Hailey on a remote gravel county road. The humble home has a metal roof and several outbuildings, and vehicles parked in front. The family has chained and locked the front gate, and a small cardboard sign says: "No visitors."
Neighbors are abiding by the family's wishes not to comment on the record about Bergdahl's capture, but described the 23-year-old as an "adventurous" soul who was educated at home, danced ballet and took part in a sport fencing club, the Sun Valley Swords.
One of the directors of the Sun Valley Ballet School in Ketchum said Bergdahl performed with the group for four or five years until about 2008.
"He's athletic," Jill Brennan said. "He just had a knack for it. He's a wonderful young man."
In the 28-minute video, Bergdahl said he was "scared I won't be able to go home." He said he was lagging behind a patrol when he was captured, which conflicts with earlier military accounts that indicated he walked off the base with three Afghans.
It wasn't clear who initially captured Bergdahl, but the U.S. command in Afghanistan said he was being held by the Taliban and condemned the video as a violation of international law.
"I'm glad to see he appears unharmed, but again, this is a Taliban propaganda video," spokeswoman Lt. Cmdr. Christine Sidenstricker said. "They are exploiting the soldier in violation of international law."
With a shaved head and dressed in a nondescript, gray outfit, Bergdahl was shown eating at one point and sitting cross-legged. He choked up when discussing his family and his hope to marry his girlfriend.
"I have a very, very good family that I love back home in America," Bergdahl said.
The Pentagon identified his hometown as Ketchum, which is about half the size of Hailey and about 12 miles north. His family says he grew up in Blaine County, closer to Hailey.
Hailey is a mix of a working-class community and resort town, just down the road from upscale Sun Valley, a ski resort that's home to celebrities including Arnold Schwarzenegger, Tom Hanks and Sen. John Kerry. Bruce Willis maintains a vacation home in the area and owns local businesses.
Bergdahl is a member of 1st Battalion, 501st Parachute Infantry Regiment, 4th Brigade Combat Team, 25th Infantry Division, based at Fort Richardson, Alaska.
He entered the Army in June 2008 and was trained in Fort Benning, Ga., said Lt. Col. Jonathan Allen, spokesman for Fort Richardson. Bergdahl reported for duty in Alaska in October, and deployed to Afghanistan in February.
In the video, Bergdahl said the date was July 14; it's clear the video was made no earlier because Bergdahl repeated an exaggerated Taliban claim about a Ukrainian helicopter that was shot down that day.
He was interviewed in English and asked his views on the war, which he called extremely hard; his desire to learn more about Islam; and the morale of American soldiers, which he said was low. He was prompted by his interrogators to give a message to the American people.
"Please, please bring us home so that we can be back where we belong and not over here, wasting our time and our lives and our precious life that we could be using back in our own country," he said.
The circumstances of Bergdahl's capture weren't clear.
On July 2, two U.S. officials told the AP the soldier had "just walked off" his base with three Afghans after his shift. The officials spoke on the condition of anonymity because they were not authorized to speak on the record.
On July 6, the Taliban claimed on their Web site that five days earlier "a drunken American soldier had come out of his garrison" and was captured by mujahedeen.
Details of such incidents are routinely held very tightly by the military as it works to retrieve a missing or captured soldier without giving away any information to captors.
Afghans in contact with the Taliban told the AP that the soldier was held by a Taliban group led by a commander called Maulvi Sangin. They said the fighters decided to move him north into Taliban-controlled areas of Ghazni province.
The Afghans spoke on condition of anonymity for fear of arrest or reprisal. It was impossible to independently confirm their information.
A Taliban spokesman, Zabiullah Mujahid, said the militants holding the soldier haven't yet set any conditions for his release.

Saturday, July 18, 2009

Iran will bring down the west

Ahmadinejad: Iran will "bring down" Western foes
Thu Jul 16, 2009 12:29pm EDT

TEHRAN (Reuters) - Newly re-elected President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad said on Thursday his next government "would bring down the global arrogance," signaling a tougher approach by Tehran toward the West after last month's disputed election.
Ahmadinejad, in his first provincial trip after the June 12 presidential vote, said Iran's enemies had tried to interfere and foment aggression in the country, referring to mass opposition protests against the official election result.
The hardline president, who often rails against the West, said the Islamic Republic wanted "logic and negotiations" but that Western powers had insulted the Iranian nation and should apologize.
Iranian leaders often refer to the United States and its allies as the "global arrogance."
"As soon as the new government is established, with power and authority, ten times more than before, it will enter the global scene and will bring down the global arrogance," he told a big crowd in the northeastern city of Mashhad.
"They should wait as a new wave of revolutionary thinking ... from the Iranian nation is on the way and we will not allow the arrogant (powers) to even have one night of good sleep," Ahmadinejad said, according to state broadcaster IRIB.
Opposition leader Mirhossein Mousavi, Ahmadinejad's main challenger in the election, says it was rigged in the incumbent's favor. The authorities reject charges of vote fraud.
Iran has accused Britain and the United States, which have criticised a crackdown on opposition protests, of interfering in its internal affairs. London and Washington reject the charge.
"In this recent election the enemy tried to bring the battlefront to the interior of this country," Ahmadinejad said.
"But I have told the enemies ... that this nation ... will strike you in the face so hard you will lose your way home," he said in comments translated by English-language Press TV.
He also voiced continued defiance in a row over Iran's disputed nuclear ambitions, saying major powers "will not be able to take away the smallest amount of Iran's rights."
Iran says its nuclear program is for peaceful power purposes. Western countries suspect it is aimed at making bombs.
(Reporting by Zahra Hosseinian; writing by Fredrik Dahl; editing by Philippa Fletcher)

© Thomson Reuters 2009 All rights reserved
addImpression("3098091_Share Links");

Friday, July 17, 2009

Romans Chapter 13 Revisited

Romans Chapter 13 Revisited

Shared via AddThis

The Long-Term Budget Outlook
Today I had the opportunity to testify before the Senate Budget Committee about CBO’s most recent analysis of the long-term budget outlook.
Under current law, the federal budget is on an unsustainable path, because federal debt will continue to grow much faster than the economy over the long run. Although great uncertainty surrounds long-term fiscal projections, rising costs for health care and the aging of the population will cause federal spending to increase rapidly under any plausible scenario for current law. Unless revenues increase just as rapidly, the rise in spending will produce growing budget deficits. Large budget deficits would reduce national saving, leading to more borrowing from abroad and less domestic investment, which in turn would depress economic growth in the United States. Over time, accumulating debt would cause substantial harm to the economy. The following chart shows our projection of federal debt relative to GDP under the two scenarios we modeled.
Federal Debt Held by the Public Under CBO’s Long-Term Budget Scenarios (Percentage of GDP)

Keeping deficits and debt from reaching these levels would require increasing revenues significantly as a share of GDP, decreasing projected spending sharply, or some combination of the two.
Measured relative to GDP, almost all of the projected growth in federal spending other than interest payments on the debt stems from the three largest entitlement programs—Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security. For decades, spending on Medicare and Medicaid has been growing faster than the economy. CBO projects that if current laws do not change, federal spending on Medicare and Medicaid combined will grow from roughly 5 percent of GDP today to almost 10 percent by 2035. By 2080, the government would be spending almost as much, as a share of the economy, on just its two major health care programs as it has spent on all of its programs and services in recent years.
In CBO’s estimates, the increase in spending for Medicare and Medicaid will account for 80 percent of spending increases for the three entitlement programs between now and 2035 and 90 percent of spending growth between now and 2080. Thus, reducing overall government spending relative to what would occur under current fiscal policy would require fundamental changes in the trajectory of federal health spending. Slowing the growth rate of outlays for Medicare and Medicaid is the central long-term challenge for fiscal policy.
Under current law, spending on Social Security is also projected to rise over time as a share of GDP, but much less sharply. CBO projects that Social Security spending will increase from less than 5 percent of GDP today to about 6 percent in 2035 and then roughly stabilize at that level. Meanwhile, as depicted below, government spending on all activities other than Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and interest on federal debt—a broad category that includes national defense and a wide variety of domestic programs—is projected to decline or stay roughly stable as a share of GDP in future decades.
Spending Other Than That for Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, and Net Interest, 1962 to 2080 (Percentage of GDP)

Federal spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security will grow relative to the economy both because health care spending per beneficiary is projected to increase and because the population is aging. As shown in the figure below, between now and 2035, aging is projected to make the larger contribution to the growth of spending for those three programs as a share of GDP. After 2035, continued increases in health care spending per beneficiary are projected to dominate the growth in spending for the three programs.
Factors Explaining Future Federal Spending on Medicare, Medicaid, and Social Security (Percentage of GDP)

The current recession and policy responses have little effect on long-term projections of noninterest spending and revenues. But CBO estimates that in fiscal years 2009 and 2010, the federal government will record its largest budget deficits as a share of GDP since shortly after World War II. As a result of those deficits, federal debt held by the public will soar from 41 percent of GDP at the end of fiscal year 2008 to 60 percent at the end of fiscal year 2010. This higher debt results in permanently higher spending to pay interest on that debt. Federal interest payments already amount to more than 1 percent of GDP; unless current law changes, that share would rise to 2.5 percent by 2020.
This entry was posted on Thursday, July 16th, 2009 at 4:43 pm and is filed under Budget Projections, Long-Term Budgetary Issues.

Wednesday, July 15, 2009


DONT FORGET ABOUT NEXT SATURDAY! Don't forget to mark your calenders. As you may already know, it is a sin for a Muslim male to see any woman other than his wife naked. He must commit suicide if he does. So next Saturday at 4 PM Eastern Time, all American women are asked to walk out of their house completely naked to help weed out any neighborhood terrorists. Circling your block for one hour is recommended for this anti-terrorist effort. All patriotic men are to position themselves in lawn chairs in front of their house to prove they are not Muslims, and to demonstrate they think its okay to see nude women other than their wife, and to show support for all American women. Since Islam also does not approve of alcohol, a cold 6-pack at your side is further proof of your anti-Muslim sentiment. The American government appreciates your efforts to root out terrorists and applauds your participation in this anti-terrorist activity. God bless America!

Nearly all my professors are Democrats.

Nearly all my professors are Democrats. Isn't that a problem?
After I posed that question, two faculty railed against me. That's a sure sign that universities should address the lack of ideological diversity.

Eugene, Ore. - When I began examining the political affiliation of faculty at the University of Oregon, the lone conservative professor I spoke with cautioned that I would "make a lot of people unhappy."
Though I mostly brushed off his warning – assuming that academia would be interested in such discourse – I was careful to frame my research for a column for the school newspaper diplomatically.
The University of Oregon (UO), where I study journalism, invested millions annually in a diversity program that explicitly included "political affiliation" as a component. Yet, out of the 111 registered Oregon voters in the departments of journalism, law, political science, economics, and sociology, there were only two registered Republicans.
Read rest of story at:

Wednesday, July 8, 2009

This is what our country has come to!

Sad Fact of Life
Ed McMahon died this last week. He was a great entertainer, but prior to his stage accomplishments he was a distinguished Marine Corps fighter pilot in WWII earning six Air Medals and attaining the rank of Colonel. He was discharged in 1946 and was later promoted to the rank of Brigadier General in the California Air National Guard.

Farrah Fawcett died this last week after a long career in Hollywood as an actress. After she was diagnosed with cancer, she became an activist for cancer treatment and devoted her last remaining years encouraging people to seek treatment. She documented her plight on film and used it to encourage others to stay positive and upbeat despite their diagnosis and suffering.

Michael Jackson died this last week. He was perhaps one of the greatest singers of modern time. He will also be remembered for his eccentric lifestyle that included sleeping with a chimpanzee, living in a carnival-like atmosphere at Neverland, his fascination with Peter Pan, and his numerous masks and costumes. He also admitted to finding pleasure sleeping with young boys and paying out millions of dollars in settlements to the families of these boys despite being acquitted by a court on one allegation of sexual molestation.

SIMPLE QUESTION # 1 - For which of the above did the House of Representatives declare a moment of silence?

(Hint - It wasn't the first two.)

SIMPLE QUESTION # 2 - Which of the above's family received a personal note of condolence from President Obama?

(Hint - It wasn't the first two.)

SIMPLE QUESTION # 3 - What's wrong with this Country?

(Hint: Find the answer to the simple question that's now on your mind . . . . "Who elected these morons?")

Need we say more???

Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval

Gallup Daily: Obama Job Approval

Shared via AddThis

Palin Blasts Critics, Remains Mum on 2012 Bid - Political News -

Palin Blasts Critics, Remains Mum on 2012 Bid - Political News -

Posted using ShareThis

Tuesday, July 7, 2009

Taxed to Death

Tax Poem At first I thought this was funny...then I realized the awful truth of it. Be sure to read all the way to the end! Tax his land, Tax his bed, Tax the table At which he's fed. Tax his tractor, Tax his mule, Teach him taxes Are the rule. Tax his work, Tax his pay, He works for peanuts Anyway! Tax his cow, Tax his goat, Tax his pants, Tax his coat. Tax his ties, Tax his shirt, Tax his work, Tax his dirt. Tax his tobacco, Tax his drink, Tax him if he Tries to think.. Tax his cigars, Tax his beers, If he cries Tax his tears. Tax his car, Tax his gas, Find other ways To tax his ass. Tax all he has Then let him know That you won't be done Till he has no dough. When he screams and hollers, Then tax him some more, Tax him till He's good and sore.. Then tax his coffin, Tax his grave, Tax the sod in Which he's laid. Put these words Upon his tomb, 'Taxes drove me to my doom...' When he's gone, Do not relax, Its time to apply The inheritance tax. Accounts Receivable Tax Building Permit Tax CDL license Tax Cigarette Tax Corporate Income Tax Dog License Tax Excise Taxes Federal Income Tax Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA) Fishing License Tax Food License Tax Fuel Permit Tax Gasoline At x (44.75 cents per gallon) Gross Receipts Tax Hunting License Tax Inheritance Tax Inventory Tax IRS Interest Charges IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax) Liquor Tax L uxury Taxes Marriage License Tax Medicare Tax Personal Property Tax Property Tax Real Estate Tax Service Charge Tax Social Security Tax Road Usage Tax Sales Tax Recreational Vehicle Tax School Tax State Income Tax State Unemployment Tax (SUTA) Telephone Federal Excise Tax Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Taxes Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax Telephone State and Local Tax Telephone Usage Charge Tax Utility Taxes Vehicl e License Registration Tax Vehicle Sales Tax Watercraft Registration Tax Well Permit Tax Workers Compensation Tax STILL THINK THIS IS FUNNY?
Not one of these taxes existed 100 years ago, and our nation was the most prosperous in the world. We had absolutely no national debt, had the largestmiddle class in the world, and Mom stayed home to raise the kids. What in the hell happened? Can you spell 'politicians?' And I still have to 'press 1' for English!?!?!?!?

‘I Do Not Apologize’: Fox News Reporter Confronts Janeane Garofalo Over ‘Racist’ Slam

‘I Do Not Apologize’: Fox News Reporter Confronts Janeane Garofalo Over ‘Racist’ Slam

Shared via AddThis

Dick Durbin - Turban Head

Dick Durbin - Turban Head

Shared via AddThis

Why Even the Devil is Against Gay Rights - Video (Funny)

Why Even the Devil is Against Gay Rights - Video (Funny)

Shared via AddThis

Video - Javelin Missile System

Video - Javelin Missile System

Shared via AddThis


There seems to be a general feeling that there are too many different groups within the Republican Party that can’t seem to compromise — or agree to disagree. (This goes back to the idea that unity isn’t the same as unanimity.) You think that all the bickering further divides the party, which would be stronger if it could focus on the things that do unite Republicans. As a party (and country) that is growing more demographically complex, it needs to change, and yet there’s a fear that adapting will take it away from its conservative tradition. But some of you think that’s an old-fashioned sentiment.
Republicans stand for less-government involvement and more personal freedom. If the party could unite over that, it would at least be a good starting point. “If you believe in freedom, life, liberty, self-determination, free enterprise, I don’t care if you’re Jewish, Agnostic, Christian, Latino, black, white, Irish, whatever. Join us.”

A Response to A Response to” WE LOVE SARAH PALIN”

A Response to A Response to” WE LOVE SARAH PALIN”
I started STICK IT TO LIBERALS and ask my long time friend, which lives in another part of the country to help me, and though I know he is a conservative, but he has own opinion that I might not always agree with but respect. To quote my friend and fellow blogger, “We do not live in a world of chocolate syrup rivers, cotton candy rainbows, and skittle shitting unicorns” this real world of down and dirty politics. Where the liberals can do and say anything they want about conservative politicians and their families, they all went to colleges that are full liberal professors cramming the liberal agenda down their throat. They talked about Reagan’s kids, Bush’s girls, but they were not going mention Amy Carter, Chelsea Clinton, and you better not say a peep about Obama’s girls or you might be visited by the secret service. I loved Sarah I feel like she did a great job, except when it came to off the cuff interviews, it was bad. I know they were liberal interviewers, but we can not change that. You have the executive branch, the house, the senate, judicial, and the media. We can not vote out the media, we can watch Fox news.
To end this matter if you are going into politics as a conservative you had check your closet and be ready for you, your family, friends, hobbies, what you wear, how you look, what you drive to be attacked. So I stand firmly to my first post, I dislike the way conservatives are treated and I despise David Letterman. To be a conservative president you have to tough and take what liberals throw at you and fight the bastards, no matter how mean and nasty they are. Reagan gave them hell!

Monday, July 6, 2009


We here at Stick It To Liberals are two different guys in two different parts of the country, and we don't always see eye to eye on everything. So there are a couple of points in the above-mentioned post I think I need to address.

We feel she was just not ready for national politics, thrown to the liberal wolves! I love this quote and I think it applies in this case.

Well, the "we" in this case doesn't include "me." I think she, personally and as a politician was plenty ready for national politics.

If there was an area in which she wasn't ready, it's that she as a mom was not ready to see her children dragged through the mud, to see her infant special needs son to be savagely mocked by the left in some of the most ugly ways imaginable, to see her 14-year old daughter become the subject of statutory rape jokes by David Letterman, etc. However, no parent, politician or not, should ever have to be ready for such a thing. Any parent, politician or not, that would let their minor children be savaged the way hers were in order to satisfy their own personal ambition, is not much of a parent at all. There is no doubt in my mind that this weighed heavily on her decision, so as a mom, what she did was absolutely the right thing to do. I would ask my partner her to put on his parent hat for a moment and consider how he would react if it were his own offspring undergoing the same - and ask his wife the same.

I have no doubt that she can take those criticisms that are/were leveled directly at her. Indeed, she has taken many such criticisms over the years in her rise to the top of Alaska politics, as she not only challenged the opposition party, but challenged the status quo in her own. You don't do such a thing (much less succeed at as she did) without taking an awful lot of heat from the other side. Yet she took it all without so much as batting an eyelash.

What was absent from that criticism though that was in abundance since her ascent into the national limelight is the trashing of her family. Indeed, I defy anyone to show me where another politician had his or her family so viciously trashed as hers was in the last 10 months. Furthermore, while I am not all that surprised to see it coming from the left wing, soulless bags of donkey shit that they are, what really sticks in my craw is the cowardly way establishment Republicans sat on their hands, plugged their ears, and pretended not to notice.

So, when you say "If you can't stand the heat, get out of the kitchen", you shouldn't do it flippantly and without considering how her family, minor children included, were being dragged through the mud. It wasn't simply a question of whether she, Sarah Palin could handle it. It's whether Trig Palin (1 year old), Piper Palin (7 years old) and Willow Palin (14 years old) could also stand to be trashed by the left wing media and blogosphere in a situation over which they had no control.

Sarah Palin took the heat just fine, thank you. But it's not fair to ask underage children (who should be completely off limits in the political arena) to be able to take the heat as well.


The other thing that bears mentioning is that the Palins are not wealthy like a lot of politicians. Thus, the plethora of bogus ethics complaints had racked up over $500k in legal bills, which is a substantial amount of their life savings. Now she should get a nice, hefty advance on her book, but it's not beyond imagining that more and more of that advance could be chewed up by legal bills if she has to continue to answer to such bogus ethics complaints. It's easy to tell other people to take that kind of a financial hit, but how many people want to do it themselves?

Those ethics complaints also cost money to Alaska taxpayers - $2 million so far. The longer she is in office, the longer both she and the state government as a whole has to respond to these ethics complaints - and waste even more taxpayer dollars while getting less accomplished in the business of running Alaska. By stepping out of the way now, Palin protects Alaska taxpayers, while freeing herself to travel more, earn speaking fees, and do other such things if she so desires.


I will say that I do believe she hurt (if not completely killed) her chances to win the presidency in 2012 by this move, but I also have a gut feeling that in the wake of what her family has been dragged through in the last 10 months, she's probably decided against it. Some, such as Mark Levin and Mary Matalin, feel differently, and while I don't agree with them, I respect their opinions and know they are both solid friends of the conservative cause (and I won't be upset if they are right and I am wrong).

My crystal ball works about as good as everybody else's which means I really don't know what she will do - I can only guess. If I had to guess, I think she's going to take a break from elective politics for a while, possibly until her children are grown. In the meantime, she'll probably stump for conservative candidates in 2010 and 2012. If so, I confidently predict she will draw huge crowds (as she does everywhere she speaks) and will put a few candidates over the top. She can still do some serious damage to Democrats, regardless of whether she holds an elective office or runs for one.

Beyond 2012, I don't even venture to guess. I'm not sure even she knows.

In the meantime, we need to get some good candidates recruited, particularly for the presidential race. Mark Sanford's meltdown and Sarah's likely exit from the 2012 derby means we now have a weak bench to select for opposition to President Urkel. Romney has great hair but is a boring technocrat who couldn't inspire a Grateful Deadhead to smoke marijuana (he couldn't even beat McCain for crying out loud). Bobby Jindal, while being very bright, is only slightly more inspiring. The RNC and establishment Republicans may come to rue the day that Palin decided to step aside, and may wonder why they didn't do more to come to her defense against the ugly attacks against her family. Tough luck for them, I suppose, although we could all be screwed if we end up with 4 more years of Obama.


Sarah Palin
First of all everyone is not going to agree with everything STICK IT TO LIBERALS blogs, and they should not everyone has their own opinion. First of all we love Sarah, and by the numbers the people of Alaska love her too. We feel she was just not ready for national politics, thrown to the liberal wolves! I love this quote and I think it applies in this case.
"If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen" is a cliché that represents the idea of not getting involved in a situation that you cannot handle to its completion; for the most part, these situations involve high levels of stress or are physically demanding from expert players of the game.
The key players:
· The Kitchen: the situation in which You finds him/herself
· The Heat: the demanding circumstances or factors surrounding the situation
· You: the person that needs not to be prideful so as not to be cooked should the demanding circumstances exceed his/her abilities to handle them
· Outside of The Kitchen: where You should find him/herself in the event his/her abilities to handle The Heat are non-existent.
We wish her the best!

Hi, I'm Maureen Dowd and I'm an ...

Most of you reading this know that Maureen Dowd is an unhinged liberal columnist for the New York Times. Many of you also know that Maureen is an aging spinster who feels spurned by men because she never managed to get married. Fred Reed writes about Maureen's man troubles here and here (they're great, can't-miss columns by the way).

I'm bringing this up due in part to Dowd's recently snarky column about Sarah Palin (which I won't link here, Mo's not worthy of the traffic). Where I'm really going with this is to use it as a jumping off point for explaining part of the liberal mindset, particularly the liberal feminist mindset.

Maureen is (or at least was) an anomaly among feminists - she was actually not half-bad looking in her younger days. In fact, she was quite fetching. Yet somehow, despite her wishes, Maureen sailed through her youth, whisked through middle age, and is now entering her senior years as a never-married woman, and all the more bitter for that fact. It makes you wonder how a woman with her good looks and intelligence (well, book smarts at least) could end up this way.

The simple truth is Maureen bought into a set of values that can be considered to a bad set of values, at least for a woman that wants to end up married. She bought into the meme that yes, you can have it all, as if making choices is no longer a requirement in life. Sorry Mo, but it is, it has always been, and it always will be.

Furthermore, being a champion of a movement that is disagreeable to the very existence of men as men is not exactly the best recipe for attracting a man. What man wants to come home from a hard day's work and be bitched at for being part of the patriarchy, being an oppressor, being a potential rapist, and whatever other horrible thing that feminist dogma insists applies to any man (or at least those that are heterosexuals)?

In short, Maureen latched on to the one thing that can make even the best looking of women suddenly appear to be no more attractive than Madeline Albright - she aligned herself with the man-haters. And as a result, she ended up never having a man ask her for her hand in marriage. What sane man would want to marry a man-hater?

Her reaction to this, well outlined in the Fred Reed columns linked above, is instructive - she blames men. No, not herself of course. In her mind, it couldn't possibly be that she's a feminist that generally holds men in contempt. No, it couldn't be that she belittles them every chance she gets, that she chooses to see nothing good about them. Perhaps someday, they'll make a movie about Marueen's predicament. Call it "Clueless, Part 2 - The Spinster Years."

The Palin column I mentioned above, and her general reaction towards the subject thereof is also instructive. Here's a woman who's had plenty of worldly success, starting from relatively humble beginnings. Not only that, she managed to grab a man (and not some simpering little girly man either), had 5 kids, and has a thriving family life. In short, it seems as though Palin has it all, and obtained it while rejecting the same feminist ideology that Maureen latched onto like a hungry wolf to a deer carcass. Compare and contrast.

Now Maureen is reduced to sitting in her apartment alone, writing snarky columns, bashing women like Palin and men of all stripes. Old, lonely, and bitter. Well, Maureen, let me dedicate a song to you here. Like Mr. Thorogood, you too will drink alone. And while alcohol may not solve your problems at this point Mo, maybe it will ease the pain - however self-inflicted it may have been.

Biden: Israel free to set own course on Iran

Biden: Israel free to set own course on Iran
By ROBERT BURNS, AP National Security Writer Robert Burns, Ap National Security Writer – Sun Jul 5, 4:09 pm ET
WASHINGTON – Vice President Joe Biden signaled that the Obama administration would not stand in the way if Israel chose to attack Iran's nuclear facilities, even as the top U.S. military officer said any attack on Iran would be destabilizing.
Biden's remarks suggested a tougher U.S. stance against Iran's nuclear ambitions. Nonetheless, administration officials insisted his televised remarks Sunday reflected the U.S. view that Israel has a right to defend itself and make its own decisions on national security.
In an interview on ABC's "This Week," Biden also said the U.S. offer to negotiate with Tehran on its nuclear program still stands. Some thought the administration's approach might change in light of the Iranian government's harsh crackdown on protesters after the June 12 presidential election. Opponents of the ruling authorities claimed the vote was rigged against them.
"If the Iranians respond to the offer of engagement, we will engage," Biden said.
Link the rest of the story:

Sunday, July 5, 2009

Global Warming? Coolest June Since 1958 NYC


A Palin Round Up

It's two-day old news now, but the blogosphere is still buzzing with the fallout from Palin's resignation. My initial impression is that this killed her chances to run for president in 2012, although I nevertheless understood her decision and empathized with her. However, regarding 2012, I'm beginning to wonder if maybe this wasn't such a shrewd move on her behalf after all. There are some pretty smart people that think it might have been.

Rush says wait and see on Palin.
His points about the DC pundit class are right on.

Speaking of the DC pundit class, The American Thinker weighs in with some good stuff here. This piece is really good, I highly recommend you check it out.

Mark Levin's reaction is also discussed here. I'm not sure if I agree with Levin's take, but it wouldn't shock me if he's right. He's an astute guy.

Ann Coulter, who has more testicular fortitude than all of the GOP insiders in DC put together, has this to say.

And finally, Mary Matalin thinks it's a brilliant move.

If they're right, Palin would end up proving a couple of Machiavelli's maxims:

One often obtains through impetuousity and audacity what never would be obtained through ordinary means.

Assuming her resignation has a political play embedded therein, she's definitely making a play by other than orginary means.

There is nothing as likely to succeed as what the enemy believes you cannot attempt.

If her enemies, both the liberals and GOP establishment squishes believe that she's finished and that there is no chance of her being a significant political player again, then they are putting themselves at a disadvantage and setting her up for success. After all, the GOP establishment in Alaska didn't think she could unseat a sittting GOP governor in a primary challenge in 2006. Oops.

It is much better to tempt fortune where it can favor you than to see your certain ruin by not tempting it.

She's definitely tempting fortune if she still retains political aspirations for the future. But there is a good case to be made that she could see her ruin by not doing so. Remaining in the Alaska Governor's Mansion invited continued bogus ethics charges, which costs money to both her personally and Alaska taxpayers as a whole, while hampering her effectiveness in both governing her state and setting herself up for a future run. Now she is in a position where she is relieved of those burdens, while having set up her political ally, Sean Parnell, as an incumbent governor to run again in 2010.

You must never believe that the enemy does not know how to conduct his own affairs. Indeed, if you want to be deceived less and want to bear less danger, the more the enemy is weak or the less the enemy is cautious, so much more must you esteem him.

Palin's enemies, neither her liberal ones or those in the GOP/Beltway establishment think she knows how to conduct her own affairs. Their belief will be tested if she re-enters elective politics.

There may be more later, but I've got to get outside and mow the lawn. But I leave you with a couple of other thoughts from another one of my favorite blogs.

Saturday, July 4, 2009

GE, NBC & Obama Ties

GE, NBC & Obama Ties
There seems to be unsavory links between General Electric and its media entities NBC and MSNBC and the Obama administration. Their needs to be more discussion by noting the blatant left leaning political bias at MSNBC that actively advocated President Obama's White House candidacy - which also now involves possible favoritism on cap and trade stimulus monies for GE. This came to a head at a GE Florida shareholders meeting in which Jesse Waters of Fox News confronted GE Chairman Jeffrey Immelt about the bias at MSNBC. Fox called out Immelt, NBC exec Jeff Zucker and a hateful rant by Janeane Garafolo. It should also noted that GE is getting bailout money and has lobbied for this money - saying this makes Watergate look small.
Ingraham noted that the left wing has howled forever about Haliburton and the funding it received getting no bid contracts during the Iraq war - and now the Obama administration - that has claimed to be transparently doing business another way - seems to be in bed with GE, NBC and MSNBC with in kind treatment.
Ingraham said that all the high minded journalism professionals should call for disclaimers on NBC and MSNBC's broadcasts. Ingraham said conservatives have been warning about this collision and collusion of government and private enterprise as well as a corrupt media. She said that when she worked at MSNBC it wasn't as biased or have a political agenda. GE has plans of playing a large part in the socialized medicine, by running the data base. That will decide who, when, and where you will receive medical care.

"Gone" Barack Obama

Barack Obama Countdown widget brought
to you by

Wherein Mark Steyn NAILS It.

Mark Steyn, the best poster on NRO's Corner by a country mile, absolutely nails the Palin situation:

Then suddenly you get the call from Washington. You know it'll mean Secret Service, and speechwriters, and minders vetting your wardrobe. But nobody said it would mean a mainstream network comedy host doing statutory rape gags about your 14-year old daughter. You've got a special-needs kid and a son in Iraq and a daughter who's given you your first grandchild in less than ideal circumstances. That would be enough for most of us. But the special-needs kid and the daughter and most everyone else you love are a national joke, and the PC enforcers are entirely cool with it.


National office will dwindle down to the unhealthily singleminded (Clinton, Obama), the timeserving emirs of Incumbistan (Biden, McCain) and dynastic heirs (Bush). Our loss.

Update: Link fixed.

A few stray thoughts on Palin

1) She's not running in 2012. For anything. People would be able to credibly use her resignation against her, saying she didn't finish her term.

2) With her resignation and Sanford's "Don't cry for me, Argentina" scandal, the GOP bench for 2012 just got a lot thinner. Romney is a smart guy, but his dedication to conservatism is questionable at best, and he's got the charisma of a toenail clipping. Jindal is young, and has slightly more charisma than Romney - let's say two toenail clippings. Huckabee is too much of a nanny stater. And Newt has more baggage than a Trans-Atlantic 747. We'd better hope someone emerges. One thing for sure, there is nobody out there that has the game-changing charisma that Palin had. Nobody could draw the crowds or raise the PAC money like she could.

3) Whether her career in elected politics is over for good is an open question. She may want to lay low for a while and return when her kids are all grown up. She could return to the national stage then, maybe when her youngest daughter Piper (now 8, I believe) is about to graduate high school. But the bottom line is, the choice is hers, so don't put too much stock in those that say her career in elected politics is finished whether she likes it or not. They said the same thing about Nixon in 1962 after he lost to Pat Brown in the race for California governor. They also said the same thing about Reagan after he lost the GOP nomination to Gerald Ford in 1976. How'd those predictions work out again?

4) As long as she stayed in politics, the left would continue targeting her kids. And when she responded (like she did to Letterman), pathetic, squishy DC pundits that fancy themselves as being on the right would tell her to "stop whining". Yes, I'm talking about you, Krauthammer, Jonah Goldberg, Quin Hillyer and Phillip Klein of The American Spectator, AllahPundit and Ed Morrissey of HotAir, and so on.

5) I really do think she resigned in large part for family reasons. Her family has been subject to some of the most vicious attacks ever hurled at a politician's family (and limply defended, if at all, by pundits on the right, save for the few Coulter's, Limbaugh's, Levin's and others we can count on to actually carry the conservative banner with pride). And while I think she could take it when it was just her being attacked, it's a far different story for a parent seeing their children attacked by the national media.

6) Directly related to 4), what disappoints me most about the treatment of Palin is not that of the liberals - I expect them to act like the soulless pieces of shit that they truly are. But alas, having read and heard many a Palin-related comments by much of the right-wing punditry, including those mentioned above, I am far more disappointed in them. Some of them are elitists, some of them elite-wannabes, but far to many of them have gone native in the DC-NY corridor and few of them have a clue about real conservative governance and what the grassroots really believes. Palin, in my opinion was a true Rorschach test that revealed the separation of those who sided with true grassroots of the right, and those elitists with aristocratic pretensions and who sided first with those that they considered in their social strata.

7) Another elitist squish named Rich Brookhiser wrote on The Corner over at NRO, after Palin's selection, that if she was the kind of candidate that excited the grassroots, then the right needed a new grassroots (don't have the exact quote handy). Well, after what we've witnessed through the prism of Palin's time on the national stage, I think it's clear that the grassroots needs a new elite. After all, the so called elite conservatives are what led us to a political environment in which a hardcore leftist like Obama could emerge and win the presidency, while giving an equally hardcore leftwing Democratic congress strong control of both the house and senate. Tell me why we should listen to them again?

These types are this generation's equivalent of the squishes on the right I discussed in my bookshelf entry earlier today, the ones who wanted Reagan to moderate his tone towards the Soviets. We were ill-served by those types then, and we are equally ill-served by them now. So while we all want to give the shaft to liberals, we need to be equally aware of those in the punditocracy and blogosphere that fancy themselves as members of the right but are nothing more than useful idiots for the left. They damage the conservative cause as much as any Democrat ever did, if not more.

Palin on the other hand? She was the best thing our movement had in years. I just hope that if she does disappear from elected politics, that she doesn't disappear altogether, because there is nobody else out there right now that could even come close to spreading our message as effectively as she could.

Good luck, Sarah.

Friday, July 3, 2009

Palin Resigning as AK Gov.

In just a short while ago.

As for what it all means? I have no idea. She might have decided she wanted no part of national politics, especially with all of the backstabbers, squishes, and cowards over even on the GOP side, as evidenced in recent days by the additional sniping from McCain campaign operatives, as well as the unsolicited 'advice' (mostly useless) from ostensibly conservative pundits.

If she's gone from politics for good, our hopes in 2012 just took a big hit. She could have been either a great nominee herself, or would have provided enough competition to make sure the eventual nominee is a good one. With Sanford's meltdown and now this, I'm not feeling so good about our chances in '12, although admittedly, it is a long way off.

Let's hope the best for her. She's a rare breed - a real conservative politician who does more than just talk the talk. She walked it too.

This Needs to Change

Hans A. von Spakovsky on Pajamas Media:

Conservatives get very frustrated over the failure of Republican administrations in general to change the course of the federal government. They do not understand why an executive branch “controlled” by a Republican president continued to implement liberal policies and regulations. Examples abound over the past eight years — from the Department of Justice’s all-out enforcement of foreign language ballots, to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s refusal to act against companies that engage in reverse racial discrimination on the basis of “diversity,” to the discriminatory awarding of federal contracts on the basis of race that continued in every federal department from Transportation to Commerce.

However, Republicans (much less conservatives) are not really in control of the executive branch even when they occupy the White House, something that most people (especially conservatives outside of Washington) do not fully understand.

The book I reviewed below covers the one administration that was an exception to this general rule, reinforcing the author's point here.

Go read it all.

The Stick It To Liberals Bookshelf, #3

Reagan's War, by Peter Schweizer

It seems very hard to believe, particularly for younger conservatives, that we actually once had a president who did more than talk conservatism, not to mention a GOP leader who did the same. But Reagan was both, a true leader and not a follower. And after two generations of New Deal Liberalism as a governing philosophy, he turned the direction of government, however briefly, towards a more conservative approach.

This book focuses mostly on Reagan's war against communism, starting during his Hollywood days. But his war against communism entailed more than taking on the Soviet Union - Reagan also had to fight a domestic battle here in the U.S. in order to pursue his war against communism. Of course, his domestic enemies included a bunch of pantywaist left wing liberals that would rather suck up to communists and dictators than revere our own Constitution and American Heritage. But then, like now, Reagan also had to battle pathetic, spineless squishes in his own party, the effeminate elites that would rather make nice with the media and the Democrats (even some of his own advisers wee wee'd in their diapers when he had "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" put in his 1987 Berlin Wall speech).

People don't remember now, but for the most part, not only liberals but elitists in his own party were against him and his crusade against communism. But Reagan was a leader, and the epitome of the phrase "one man with courage makes a majority". No kidding. The grassroots strongly supported Reagan and his hardline stance against the Soviets, ignoring the liberals and the squishes. They were sick and tired of America being pushed around, particularly after the shameful end to Vietnam and the misery of the Carter years.

What the history in this book illustrates more than anything is that why true leaders stand on principle and how such a standing wins out in the end, even when things are tough during the journey. While we know the liberals in this country lack principles and courage, we still have far too many squishes that claim to be on the right who are all too willing to abandon principles when the going gets tough, far too willing to compromise with the left, and far too eager to seek respectability from the establishment media.

If you ever wanted to read a book that demonstrates the value of standing on principle alone rather than going along to get along, this is the book. History proved Reagan right, and spectacularly so. Had he not been willing to stand on his principles against both liberals and squishes, I wouldn't be writing about this right now - and Reagan would have been just another so-so president. We know that wasn't the case - even the squishes will admit it now.

Democrats against Barack Obama.

Democrats against Barack Obama.
If you believe Obama was unfit for Senate why would you be surprised he is not a good president..

-Michelle Obama,proud to be an American only after her husband is president.

-Rev.Wright's strong relationship to Obama and their ideological ties.

-In 2003 Obama donate $22,000USD to Rev.Wright's Trinity Church.

-Obama supports Black separatist views.

-In the begining of his campaign claims he did not vote for the Iraq war yet Obama was not able to vote either way as he had not yet assumed that privilege in the senate.

-Obama made excuses for Rev.Wright and racism against White people. Yet, Obama demanded the resignation of Don Imus.

-Obama claimed he will bring "hope" to America yet has no changes of any kind.

-Obama employs Nation of Islam, in the past and present.Lets them go untouched, which Raises concerns about Obama’s own stance on the Nation of Islam.

-Obama dissimulates about his former take on Israel, and the Palestinians, putting in question his present stance.

-Obama misrepresents his background, and the context from which he hails, for political purposes.

-Obama’s handlers deliberately exploits his racial identity, to shield their candidate from regular media grilling.

-Obama has chosen a deliberate strategy of evasion and vagueness in tackling tough issues. He does not take a stand, and he wont.

-Obama’s rise to prominence, in Chicago, is fraught with faulty voting machine events, and strange circumstances.

-Why Obama’s record in Chicago, has not received a proper vetting or review by the national media, is puzzling.

-Obama entered Havard because his father was an Alumnus.

-It is not clear when changed his name from Barry Soetoro, and why.

-The Media refuse to ask him questions about all of the above. Why?

-Obama’s opposition to the Iraq war, while laudable in hindsight made little sense in 2002, except when his family, ethnic, and religious identity enter the equation.

By voter that wants a redo!

Thursday, July 2, 2009


Newsbusters relays an NBC report that Saddam Hussein told the FBI that he was bluffing about WMD's for fear of Iranian nukes. Needless to say, that bluff didn't work out too well for him.

It kind of reminds me of this bit by former SNL Weekend Update anchorman Norm MacDonald:

Jonathan Schmitz, the “Jenny Jones” guest who killed his secret gay admirer because of his fear and hatred of homosexuality, has been sentenced to 25 years in prison. Well, I guess that plan backfired!

California: What Unchecked Liberalism Hath Wrought

By now, most of us have heard about the fiscal crisis in the state of California, which has gotten so bad that the state now has to issue IOU's:

California's controller will start paying many of the state's bills with promissory notes as soon as Thursday after lawmakers failed to close the state's worsening budget deficit, adding a new measure of indignity to a state sinking deeper into dysfunction.

Lawmakers' failure to act on Tuesday, the end of the fiscal year, also widened California's deficit from what already had been a whopping $24.3 billion — more than a quarter of its general fund.

What is happening in California is a perfect illustration of the consequences of a generation or more of unchecked liberalism. California began trending blue sometime after Reagan left the Governor's mansion in Sacramento in early 1975. The end of the Cold War accelerated this trend even more, as many defense jobs were eliminated and most of the defense contractors that remained were severely downsized. If California were it's own country now, it would probably be a 2nd-and-a-half world country, barelling down the road toward third world status.

How did this happen? California is a state that has a surplus of natural beauty. It's not too shabby on natural resources either. Along the California coastline, a "bad" day means the weather was merely good, whereas a good day means the weather is off the charts awesome. So what happened?

Liberalism is what happened. California has one of the highest tax burdens of any state in the nation. They have a regulatory environment that is unfriendly, if not downright hostile to business. They have unbreakable public unions that are only exacerbating the current budget crisis. Their environmental policies go way beyond those of any other state in the union, placing additional burdens on citizens and businesses alike. And at this point, they have no credible conservative opposition politically (don't say Schwarzennager please, he's not conservative). The American magazine has a great article entitled Sundown for California here that explains it all more fully than I can here.

Things are only going to get worse. Businesses and people are leaving California. As the linked article explains:

In California, domestic outmigration, which was about even in 2001, swelled to over 260,000 in 2007.

This means fewer consumers, fewer businesses, and fewer taxpayers to fill the coffers of a rapacious state government. It also means fewer electoral votes and fewer seats in the U.S. House of Representatives.

What has been done in California for at least a generation now is what the liberals want to do to the country. The liberals want to apply the same policies nationwide as they have to California.

Why the hell would anyone want the whole country to be like California when people are leaving it in droves and when the fiscal situation is so dire that their bond rating is about to fall to junk status?

Why would anyone want the whole country to have environmental restrictions so severe that it's almost impossible to build any new power plants there?

Why would anyone want to have such a ridiculously high tax burden? Why would anyone want to start a business in a state that is hostile to the same?

And why would anyone want to run the country like California when people are leaving there in droves, despite the incredible scenery and even better weather?

California should serve as a warning to us all. It's a clear demonstration of the perils of unchecked liberalism. Despite having advantages that other states don't have, people and businesses are leaving there in droves.

Let's not let the liberals Californicate the whole United States.