Iraq, Obama and Code Pink: Bake For 20 Minutes And Then Let Cool For 5 Minutes

Article from NYT

In an interview in Iraq on Wednesday, General Odierno suggested that it might take the rest of the year to determine exactly when United States forces could be drawn down significantly.

“I believe that if we can get through the next year peacefully, with incidents about what they are today or better, I think we’re getting close to enduring stability, which enables us to really reduce,” General Odierno said as he inspected a polling center south of Baghdad in advance of provincial elections on Saturday.

Wait a minute, you are telling me that a mere General would dare to express his own opinions on a plan and suggest differently!? This is an outrage, how can he possibly know more by being on the ground over there in Iraq than our new President who has been in Chicago, around the country and spent the last week in the White House??! If this is surprising to anyone out there, you are obviously one of the problems in the country.

All sarcasm aside, this statement actually eludes to victories in Iraq, go figure! Then again this type of positive spin on the war would only show up after the elections.

J. D. Crouch II, who was President Bush’s deputy national security adviser and a leading architect of the “surge” strategy, said Mr. Obama and his team would be wise to heed the military. “They don’t want Iraq to go bad because they have too many other important things to do,” he said. “They don’t want to alienate the military. And there’s something to be said that the guy who got things under control over there, Ray Odierno, probably has a good idea of what he needs.”

It makes my head spin that all this stuff is connected. I feel like I am outside with a tin foil hat on yelling about U.F.O.s and conspiracies but it is so blatantly obvious and true that I can't believe the public doesn't notice. It drives me nuts.

Yet Mr. Obama faces pressure from his political base to stick to his 16-month timetable. “We voted for him because he’s going to get us out of Iraq,” said Medea Benjamin, co-founder of Code Pink, an antiwar group. “If there are some military people who feel we should stay there, they’re entitled to their opinion, but that should’t be our policy.”

Code Pink. These are the people that preach about freedom of speech by showing up at rallies and conferences to shout out and cut off other people's free speech. These morons just said that the military that they are standing up for have no comprehension of how to proceed with the war they are fighting and that they, and their new President, know better on what to do.

I hope I run into a Code Pink group sometime in my life, I have a few "free" things to share with them.

Others said the timetable was less important than the goal. “It helps for him to aim for it,” said Representative Ike Skelton, Democrat of Missouri and chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. “If you can draw your troops down to within the ballpark and they’re safe, that’s what counts.”

I rarely do this, Democrat Representative Ike Skelton, I applaud you for your sense of reason and thoughtfulness. It is a thing not found in your party too often. Obviously you realize what "responsibility" means.

Republicans Resist that Good Ol' Obama Charm

The house has apparently passed their version of the stimulus bill this week, without republican support. It seems only a very small side note in the NYT article that 11 democrats also voted against the bill.

Without a single Republican vote, President Obama won House approval on Wednesday for an $819 billion economic recovery plan as Congressional Democrats sought to temper their own differences over the enormous package of tax cuts and spending.

President Obama met with republican leaders this week to discuss their views on the stimulus plan and to get their input in efforts to mold a non-partisan bill. It was a show, a spectacle, a real display of President Obama reaching across the aisle. A show it was, like all shows it was a basic act to put the public at ease. Like always, the media did their part by making it seem like the President actually gave a damn.

The truth is that republican leaders were fooled into the meeting as well. When the meeting was all said and done, the leaders said that their suggestions for tax cuts and other plans had received a looping response of "Thanks for your input but this is how it is going to be". Did you know that this stimulus plan can pass without ONE SINGLE republican vote for it? Why then would the President schedule and show up to this meeting if he wasn't going to consider their opinions?

After the meeting, House Republican Leader John Boehner said he and his colleagues told Obama they feel the stimulus package is too expensive and too slow. He said Republicans told Obama of their own plans to "get fast-acting tax relief in the hands of American families and small businesses, because, at the end of the day, government can't solve this problem."

Republicans have been seeking deeper tax cuts and have said there was no reliable estimate of the bill's impact on employment.

Japan had eight stimulus packages in the that all had spending involved to get them out of their recession and it only made matters worse. Throughout American history spending has only made recessions worse and it has been proven that tax cuts help. So I ask you again, why would the President even consider this meeting if he didn't even need their support? It is a typical liberal politician strategy, get bi-partisan support when the odds of a bill failing miserably are extremely high so you can blame it on the opposite party. Except the republicans didn't fall for it this time and when this plan fails, and it will, it is all on the democrat's shoulders. Why the meeting? Because if only a few suggestions had been put into place and just a few republicans signed on for the bill, the failure can be put on those few suggestions, yet not one republican voted for it suggesting to the public that none of their suggestions were put into place.

If spending has never dug out an economy from a recession I guess the President feels that a history making amount may change that fact. When you are talking about a trillion dollar stimulus plan, wait let me show you that ($1,000,000,000,000), it is really in a sense more likely higher if not double that after all is said and done. With all of the pork that is attached to the bill to total amount that will actually go towards stimulating the economy is in the range of 12% and that 125 will start to help the economy within the next 2-3 years. There is no immediate or even semi-immediate relief? You could have an immediate effect if you split that among all Americans and cut checks for $2,500 for each man, woman and child.

The "stimulus" part of the plan gives so called "tax relief" to middle class families through a break in total taxes taken out of their checks or in the form of a written check to them. Then there are checks cut to a large portion of the country that don't even pay federal taxes, in a sense it is a very large "welfare check". Why does this matter? Because those of us who pay taxes are accepting this money on the false premise that it is "free" money. What we are actually doing is passing a debt on to our children and grandchildren to the tune of about $6,000 over the span of their lifetime. Yet, only those who pay taxes will carry their family's burden ALONG WITH the burden of those who don't pay any taxes at all, those future generations of people who don't pay taxes just continue their past generation's traditions.

These stimulus plans are not free money, they are paid for by taxes and although we may receive a little bit of tax relief now, you can bet that your taxes are about to go sky high in the foreseeable future. A history-breaking-record-high spending bill can only be matched by a balanced increase in taxes. Enjoy.

Uhh Obama's uhh umm Press Secretary: Uhhh umm Robert um Gibbs

Okay Mr. President, the joke is over, bring out your real Press Secretary from behind that curtain. What? This isn't a joke? uhh ummm. Crap.

I have to give it to President Obama, he is a fantastic speaker and although I disagree with his policies almost 100% of the time, I bet sitting in one of his classes would have been cool. He absolutely had people's attention with his swordsmanship use of words. That is why I am completely baffled by his pick for Press Secretary, Robert Gibbs.

Gibbs is incapable of getting through two sentences without using the words "uh" or "um". Sometimes he even says them back to back! You would think that Obama would have picked someone as good or better a speaker than himself. At least send this Gibbs to a speech therapist or class to correct these "ticks" within his briefings.

Maybe I am completely off-base though, maybe he has us focusing on his "uhs'" and "ums'" to distract us from the administration's real plans. Conspiracy land, heck I am already there, thing is I don't know what the heck they just talked about in that briefing because I couldn't concentrate.

Please Mr. President, do something about this ASAP.

More video:

Gibbs shows how low he can go on the Hannity Combs show by acting like a 5th grader. Hey Gibbs, Hannity is supposed to interview people from all directions, Obama associated with Ayers, he didn't just interview him or something. Check the video:

Stocks Are Down, Economy Is Looking Up

I am going to make a prediction for the 2009 year, post Inauguration of Obama. You are about to see an onslaught of media stories talking about the economy looking up and that we are coming out of the recession.

You see, although the economy is a reflection of the stock market, un-employment rates and the housing market, it also has a psychology factor in it as well. When people believe what they are hearing, they act accordingly.

I would love to point out this as another fact that the media is so glaringly obvious that it has a liberal slant to it but this, unfortunately, will have to be proven over the next year.

During 2008, the media was saying that the Bush administration had gotten us into an economic mess. Ignoring the facts that the Clinton administration had a HUGE part in this, along with Barney Frank and Christopher Dodd, the media lead the people to believe that we were heading into another depression. When people believe that the economy is doing bad a few things happen, people start saving instead of spending, companies start taking a closer look at their overhead (read: employees) and people start traveling less among other things. As these circumstances start to take place, the market reflects these actions. When people start saving instead of spending, the retail market starts to plummet, this includes the housing market. When companies take a closer look at their overhead, people start to get laid off, un-employment rates start to climb. Instead of giving people their "hope", the media instead used the market as a scarlet letter on the Bush administration and therefore are also very much to blame for this recession.

Look at it this way, the media felt it was more important to chastise Bush than to have a care that you still have a job and can take care of your family.

As we return from our look back on the previous year and instead look forward at (not to) 2009, my prediction falls perfectly in line with the agenda of the media and new President. The reason it hasn't started to happen yet and that we continue to see economic woos, is because Obama hasn't put forth any concrete action yet that can have highlighted media attention to it. When he does, the media will swoop in with voices calling out that the economy is climbing from the recession, the market is shifting up, un-employment is dropping, houses are being bought and it is all because of Obama. Thing is, they will be right "after" the fact. Because people are tied to the news tube and rely on it for their morning or nightly news, we can once again look to psychology in economics.

When the media says we are coming out of a recession, people will start to spend more instead of save, leading to higher sales in retail and more houses being bought. Companies that laid off people will be looking to invest in their companies growth by starting to hire more people and investing in infrastructure and business ventures, leading to lower un-employment rates.

So yes, the economy is aiming to do better in 2009. The question you may have is, why didn't the media cover the economy in this manner then the whole time? Conspiracy and common knowledge meet to point towards bias ism in the media.

Of course, this is just a theory, check back with me in 2010 if you really want to argue it.

Objective Liberal Journalism With Helen Thomas

Skip to minute marker 3:20 and watch from there.

"President George W. Bush. You're quoted as saying he's the worst president in history."

"That's because he came in with the whole idea of war. He misses most unkind. Not only that but his conservative views on everything. I'm a liberal. I was born a liberal. I'll be one until I die. What else should the reporting be, when you see so much and when we have such great privilege and access to the truth."

"Well, you know, it's interesting because I'm sure somebody from the right would--If you ask the question, what else should a reporter be and they would go, oh, I don't know, how about objective?"

"You're not asking people not to think, not to care, are you? You are asking them to give a fair reporting, both sides and so forth, and I did it. For 57 years I was never, never accused of bias in my copy."

So, she did not like President Bush and his policies because of his conservative views, meaning that he never had a chance to impress her no matter what he did, leading to her obvious objective reporting.

Helen was "born a liberal", which really brings to light the whole mentality of a lot of liberal people in this country, it did not take education or an in-depth look and analysis of views and politics, it just was for her.

"You're not asking people not to think, not to care, are you?", no Helen, obviously if you are born a liberal it does not take thinking to be a liberal and therefore you don't have to ask people not to think, they are already there and listening to you instead for guidance. "What else should reporting be?", well at least this interviewer got it right, objective, but apparently we should only have liberal views in the media if I am to read Helen's statement literally.

Here is a salute to your dusty, yet delightfully honest, biased opinion Helen Thomas.

Ray Of Light: The Caroline Kennedy Files

Finally! On the conservative news front there is some good news! Caroline Kennedy has withdrawn her consideration for Hillary Clinton's Senate seat.

The New York Times article that was a headliner today explains their speculations on her decision:

Ms. Kennedy did not elaborate, but a person who spoke to her suggested that her concerns about the health of her uncle, Senator Edward M. Kennedy, who suffers from brain cancer and was hospitalized after a seizure on Tuesday, contributed to her decision.

Highly doubtful, it would seem to be more the criticism of late relating to her lack of speaking skills and the pointing out of her qualifications mainly being that of her last name. Plus, let's be honest, it is one thing if your father is going through what Ted Kennedy is going through but to withdraw because of an uncle's situation? First I find that to be false based just on that but if you doubt that then let's take a deeper look.

The Kennedys are known for their politics, namely that they always have their hands in political decisions somewhere, this would have been prime opportunity to extend that reach with another Kennedy in the line.

Either there is something else that we are not seeing or it is due to the criticisms I had mentioned above, either way, conservatives breathe a sigh of relief and whisper an "amen" to each other.

Now, how is Fran Dresher doing in the race for that seat?

Global Warming: Orange You Glad I Didn't Say Banana?

It is certainly noble as a company to take an interest in the public and environment's good and well-being. The question is, do companies that go green actually care or are they doing it for marketing value?

I work in a marketing firm, we had a financial institution that said on a postcard, regular postcard material, that they are going green and using enviro-friendly materials for paper and by bringing things online. Earth-friendly message on a non-Earth-friendly postcard...hmmm. That is kind of like Al Gore leaving the Green Ball after the Inauguration of Obama, in an SUV.

One of today's articles in the New York Times is about carbon emitted from the production of Orange Juice.

PepsiCo finally came up with a number: the equivalent of 3.75 pounds of carbon dioxide are emitted to the atmosphere for each half-gallon carton of orange juice. But the company is still debating how to use that information. Should it cite the number in its marketing, and would consumers have a clue what to make of it?

Well the answer to the last question is that the public would gasp and then realize that they don't even have a clue as to what an acceptable level might really be for this production. Should they put it in their marketing? My guess is that they will take measures to reduce this by small amount and then use it in their marketing.

The list of companies that have taken steps to reduce carbon emissions includes I.B.M., Nike, Coca-Cola and BP, the oil giant. Google, Yahoo and Dell are among the companies that have vowed to become “carbon neutral.”

Well of course those companies are, it affects their bottom line when this information is public knowledge. Those that "go green" are more likely to raise sales whether they care about the environment or not, and I am leaning towards the latter.

On a related note, predictions for Global Warming have been reduced by 20% by scientists that have actually taken the time to do a study for once, this means with "data" to back up their claims.

By entering realistic estimates of stocks of black carbon in soil from two Australian savannas into a computer model that calculates carbon dioxide release from soil, the researchers found that carbon dioxide emissions from soils were reduced by about 20 percent over 100 years, as compared with simulations that did not take black carbon’’s long shelf life into account.

The findings are significant because soils are by far the worlds largest source of carbon dioxide, producing 10 times more carbon dioxide each year than all the carbon dioxide emissions from human activities combined.

Did you hear about this in the news? More than likely you have not but as long as the fear stays with us about an impending Global Warming Armageddon, we will continue to rely on An Inconvenient Truth.

An Inauguration with Rainbows and Butterflies, Hopes and Dreams

If you can get through this article without rolling your eyes, chuckling or quitting before the end then you are living in your own world.

Once again, almost daily lately, the NYT has made it painfully obvious that they will continue to aid Obama in his presidency and put the blinders on the public by use of their articles.

I almost hate that I have to reread this garbage to pick out the quotes to talk about, but here it goes.

Christophe E. Jackson, 28, a black Ph.D. candidate in biology at the University of Alabama, Birmingham, who is also pursuing a medical degree, recalled that in the past he had uneasy conversations with white students and colleagues about affirmative action. He believed that many whites thought he had an edge, and were sometimes blunt about saying so. But Mr. Obama’s campaign and election seem to have changed those perceptions.

This is almost in lines with the post yesterday about sexual discrimination in the workplace. The reason why these students are uncomfortable is because they believe if they say the wrong thing or counter an argument in any way, that they will be labeled and singled out within the classroom. Hell, they could even be sued! They JUST mentioned in a paragraph before that:

The unpublished study found that the answers revealed little evidence of antiblack bias, in sharp contrast to many earlier studies (including one by Dr. Plant) showing that roughly 80 percent of whites have some degree of bias.

Which means that he should have NO problem with discussing these issues! Either they are uncomfortable because of the consequences of saying something by accident or if it was taken the wrong way or maybe even by legal actions. The other possibility is that the professor is making himself uncomfortable by assuming these students are uncomfortable.

“I think they will see Obama as the star,” said Gilda Squire, 39, who owns a public relations firm in Manhattan. “That’s already begun, if you ask me. Yes, we’re celebrating the historical event and it’s a major feat, I get it. But in terms of the day-to-day, I don’t know.”

Well at least some people out there can be honest about what qualified him for this position. Once again, as I have said before, you put his "nice" personality aside, Obama and Clinton were in a neck and neck race for one reason each.

“I can’t stand it when folks feel like they have to watch what they say around me,” said Ms. Millner, a columnist for Parenting Magazine and a book author.

That's because bills and laws have made people feel like they have to walk on egg shells all the damn time around everyone except for "white males" because a lawsuit is just waiting to happen, that is exactly why this type of behavior occurs.

Two studies on strategic colorblindness conducted by researchers at Tufts University and the Harvard Business School (the former appeared in The Journal of Personality and Social Psychology in October, and the latter in Developmental Psychology in September) concluded that whites, including children as young as 10, may attempt to avoid talking about race with blacks, or even acknowledging racial differences, so as not to appear prejudiced.

The studies also found that blacks viewed that tactic as evidence of prejudice.

Did the NYT just throw blacks under the bus? Are they trying to tell me that in the name of "sensitivity" on behalf of whites, blacks feel even more prejudice from whites?

Mr. Obama “was so careful not to let his candidacy use those usual messages about race, so he really stands for something different,” Ms. Lasch-Quinn added. “This shakes up the status quo because here we have someone who is willing to talk about race, but doesn’t talk about it in the usual ways. Once we have one person doing that, we now have a model for how other people can do that.”

During his campaign, Mr. Obama almost entirely avoided the topic of race, as did the other candidates, continuing a tacit understanding among national leaders dating from the close of the civil rights era that race is just too explosive an issue for public discussion. The one exception was the speech last March in which Mr. Obama was forced to defend inflammatory statements by the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Mr. Obama described the nation as still deeply beset by black anger and white resentment, especially older generations, who might not express themselves freely among co-workers or friends of the opposite race, but give vent when safely among members of their own race.

The BIGGEST BULL and COVER UP of the entire article. This is so fallacious it is unbelievable. Need I point you to an evidence filled previous post I had with video and audio proof of race being used as a tool within the campaign for the democrats?

On the morning after the election, Kristin Rothballer, 36, who lives in San Francisco, kissed her female partner goodbye on the train while commuting to work. A black woman who sat down next to her turned and said she was sorry that Proposition 8, the amendment to ban gay marriage in the state, looked like it was going to pass.

“We grabbed hands,” Ms. Rothballer recalled. “And I said, ‘Well, I really want to congratulate you because we have a black president and that’s amazing.’ ”

“Our conversation then almost became about the fact that we were having the conversation,” she said.

Something moved her to apologize to the black woman for slavery.

“For two strangers riding a train to Oakland to have that conversation about race, it wouldn’t have been possible if Obama hadn’t been elected,” she said. “I always felt open with my colleagues, but to say to a stranger on the train, ‘Hey, I’m sorry about slavery,’ that just doesn’t happen.”

What a tear-jerking story, give me a damn break. I am bleeding out of my eyes and ears right now reading this because it is so typical of the emotional tactics used by the left. First of all, unless you are old enough to have been in a family that owned an African American as a slave, there is no reason for you to apologize at all. This issue has been discussed and it is very clear that:

a.) It was an evil and unkind period in American history.

and

b.) There are not many people who are happy about the fact that it happened.

Let's move on with our lives and forget about this stuff, it is the mentioning of that history that keeps the animosity in the race relations on both sides. Obama has proved that America is ready to move passed race, how about the rest of us follow that mentality. Hell we voted for it!

Child Heathcare Coverage Bill Passing, NYT Deceives In The Meantime.

The house is passing a bill that is "similar" to a bill that had been vetoed by President Bush twice in the past. This bill will cover children's health care and provide coverage to an extra 4 million uninsured children.

What the New York Times neglects to mention, intentionally to pit public against republicans in office, is that Bush vetoed that bill earlier because one was filled with pork spending that had NOTHING to do with the health of children and two, because the other was directed at children but covered a range of adults as well and was STILL covered in pork spending!

House Republicans raised several objections to the bill. While the cost of the child health program will increase, they said, tobacco revenues will not, so the government will face a widening gap that will probably be filled with additional tax increases in the future.

Moreover, Republicans said, under the bill, some of the money will be spent to provide public coverage for children who already have private health insurance through their parents’ employers.

Republicans also complained that the bill did not require states to cover the poorest children first, before covering children from middle-income families.

Hmmm, higher taxes in the future due to democrat's bill? Not enough money to put towards it? Money will cover those who don't need it and leave out a good portion of those who do? These darn republicans with their crazy making sense all the time, get them out of there. There is no need for using your brain anymore, it is all about "hope", "change" and "yes we can". We "hope" we can cover the right children. We might have to "change" this bill down the road because it required no thinking and sat waiting for Obama to just let it slide through. When the republicans say that this can't pass because there is too much wrong with it we will shout in glorious unison "yes we can!...without your opposition and representation of the people".

This is ridiculous. The New York Times runs plays for the democrats in office all the time to pull disappearing acts on the public and we wonder why their is such hatred for republicans.

The article also refers to something else that was recently passed that is also BS, in regards to "sex discrimination in the workplace".

The vote came five days after the House, defying a veto threat from Mr. Bush, passed two bills to combat sex discrimination by employers who pay women less than men doing the same or substantially similar work.

This bill is basically opening up the door for "unlimited" suing power due to discrimination within the workplace for women making less than a man in the same position. "Unlimited", referring to the amount for which a woman can sue the company, basically allowing them to sink the company for no reason other than spite.

Don't get me wrong, if it is a case where the woman deserves the same amount or more, then it is a case to be discussed BUT there is now an open door for the following ridiculous situations:

1. If a man with a fuller resume of experience and education is being paid more than a woman in the same position at the company, the woman can sue.- Forget college people, it shouldn't matter to you anymore if you think that education will help you, we need to think about "equality" now.

2. If a woman is just hired to a position that is also held by a man that has been there for years in that same position, gathering raises, and the woman is hired at a lower pay, she can sue.-Well businesses, better tell those employees to stop asking for raises!

3. If two (same) positions become available at a company and they hold interviews, you might run into the following situation: The employer wants to hire for X amount of money, let's say $25,000 a year but the man who applies asks for $28,000 and they negotiate to $27,000. A woman comes in for the second (same) position and accepts the $25,000 without negotiation, she can then sue.

4. Even more interesting, with any of the positions above, if you would replace the word "woman" with "another man" it would be a moot point. It is only unfair if the opposite sex is making less. How the hell does that make sense?!

I am sure that I can come across more and more examples but the fact of the matter is that in the name of "fairness and equality" we are basically screwing up things even worse. With the ability to sue for an "unlimited amount" a woman could potentially shut a company down and make many people lose their jobs due to any of the reasons listed above.

Due to these stupid liberal policies, our country is going down the toilet. It is because of these bills and laws that people become "sue happy" and everyone has to walk on egg shells in this country. It seriously reminds me of the mentality of most city slickers to country people. Country people don't see the need in suing unless it is absolutely necessary, select city slickers rely on suing as a secondary income and will literally bend their lifestyles around finding loopholes to sue someone for something.

This has to stop.

Obama Themed Coffee in the UK

Picture and story from Springwise

The world is fascinated with the upcoming President of the United States, Barack Obama. To celebrate, Krispy Kreme will be giving out coffees with Obama in the foam if you walk in and say "yes we can".

All seriousness aside, as usual, if you are one of the people screaming for Universal Healthcare and you find yourself in a Krispy Kreme shop, well...it may be time to take another look at your priorities in life.

"Yes we can!...raise our cholestoral level"

Kid With Nazi Name Update

Apparently the children have been removed from the home now. As a recap, the one child was named after Adolph Hitler and their Daughters were named JoyceLynn Aryan Nation Campbell and Honszlynn Hinler Jeannie Campbell.

This brings up some interesting questions though. Did the parents make a big hoopla over their child's name not being put onto a birthday cake so that they could receive national attention? If so, and they probably love their children, it lead to them being taken away. So had they not made a big deal for publicity, they would still have their children. Then again, had they named their children something other than evil figures in history, they probably wouldn't be in this mess in the first place.

The other, more obvious, question would be, should these children really be removed from their home based on their names alone? I haven't seen any signs of abuse or anything yet or heard anything reported. Horrible choice in judgement though the parents may have, is it enough to deserve this?

I think these parents are probably not the type of people I would hang around. I certainly would maybe try to help the children by doing a name change but taking them away? I don't know.

Hopefully it is a wake up call in the least.

UPDATE: Apparently the youth and child services of New Jersey said that they would not take children from a home based solely on the circumstances surrounding the names of a child. They declined to comment further but it would seem there were probably instances of abuse then, in which case I fully support the removal of the children. Very sad all around.

Obama On His Transparency and Empty Promises

That picture has to be one of the funniest I have ever seen!

Obama conceded it will be difficult to enforce his pledge to ban congressionally earmarked projects from the nearly $800 billion economic stimulus plan he's negotiating with Congress.

"In a package of this magnitude, will there end up being certain projects that potentially don't meet that criteria of helping on health care, energy or education? Certainly," he told ABC in the interview taped Saturday.

No, Mr. Elect, it is very easy to live up to your "pledge" by reminding those in the house and senate that you will veto any bills that are filled with pork spending of any kind. Make it clear that if it happens to cross your desk, that you will inform the public that the reason such an "important" bill was vetoed is that certain senators felt the need to add in unnecessary items that had nothing to do with the bill and filled their own selfish individual needs. Throw in that you will be releasing the names of said senators through your website with the details of what they wanted to add in spending for reference.

I mean, is this so hard? The fact of the matter is that Mr. Obama and his croonies are just making excuses to get away with spending us into oblivion. Obama may be bad with spending but the real traitors to this country, high on the scale, would be Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi.

Obama, who has been receiving daily national security briefings since his election in November, acknowledged that his campaign pledge to close the prison at Guantanamo Bay will be more of a challenge than he anticipated. Many of those held at the military site are suspected terrorists or potential witnesses in cases against them.

The president-elect said that while some evidence against terrorism suspects may be tainted by the tactics used to obtain it, that doesn't change the fact they are "people who are intent on blowing us up."

Well this is certainly a slightly different angle than the New York Times has been taking. The NYT as recently as today said that "Obama's plan to close Guantanamo Bay may take a year".

The president-elect drew criticism from some human rights groups Monday who said his remarks suggested that closing Guantánamo was not among the new administration’s highest priorities.

Strike another "pledge" off the Obama list. Basically these types of things happen so that he has a few "pledges" to live up to in his second (more than likely) term. Instead of getting angry, his followers will simply "understand" where he is coming from and make excuses for him and continue to aim their anger at the Republican party, cause it's easy to get emotional of course.

As far as Obama's plan for a "transparent administration", something that many in the public have not heard is the new rule changes for Congress.

The rule changes passed Tuesday, on the first day of the 111^th Congress, are “designed to silence” Republicans, Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.) said.

“The new rules repeal term limits for committee chairman, consolidate power in the hands of a few, and attempt to silence Republican input on key policy debates, in addition to making a mockery of the Democratic leaders' promises of presiding over an open Congress,” Blunt said in a news release.

Republicans are particularly upset about limits on sending bills back to committee for amendments.

According to Blunt, Republicans have used the motion to recommit “as one of the very few tools left to the Minority to improve legislation before its passage.”

Democrats complain that motions to recommit are gimmicks used by Republicans to delay or kill legislation and to score political points at the expense of Democrats.

The new rules allow the full House to reconsider a bill without delay.

Fantastic! That means that those of us who did NOT vote for the democrat party are now NOT represented at all within the house! The reason we vote these people in are to represent our views on things and now the democrats have created an Easy Pass lane for any bill that they want passed to fly by opposition.

Conservatives have been loosely and humorously tying the current democrats and liberals to socialist views and even communism but this REALLY smacks that view out of the ballpark as a homerun.

Congrats people, we just gave the power of the people over to a bunch of representatives of themselves.

The Layman's Guide to Israel's War

You and a three of your friends go out one night to meet up for dinner at the most posh place in town. You are all looking good, like you own the joint. As you walk up to the hostess's podium to enter your party's name they decide to seat you immediately. A gentleman nearby is looking sour at the "express line" to the seating.

As you pull up your chairs to the table, you notice a nearby shouting match with the waitress and this disgruntled guest. "I was here before them and you sat them immediately while I am still here waiting!" he yells.

Without your permission the waitress seats the steaming gentleman at your table with your three friends. This obviously is an awkward situation for everyone but for the sake of argument, no one leaves their chairs for the long wait at the door for the next table available.

You and your friends are having a grand old time when all of a sudden for no reason this man dips a chunk of his napkin into his drink, tears off a piece, loads his straw and fires the "spit ball" right into your left eye.

Shocked that this man would even consider the action, you sit stunned and silent. Being the "nice" person that you are, you wipe it off your eye and continue with the conversation. Five minutes later another ball hits and sticks right between your eyes. Your friends look in amazement that this is even happening!

"Sir, I would really appreciate it if you would knock that off please" you say to the man. He scoffs at you as he directs his attention to the waitress for his latest alcohol order.

You are in the middle of a hilarious reminiscent memory, laughing out loud, when suddenly another ball shoots right into your open mouth mid-laugh. You cough and choke, spitting angrily to the side of the table to get it out.

"Listen mister, I told you before to knock this sh*$ off! What the hell is wrong with you?!?"

"I don't like that this table was yours instead of mine and I CERTAINLY don't like you and your friends!" he yells in your face, so angry that spit is flying with his words.

Well you and your friends are Israel, the man is Hamas, the table is carefully divided into Israel and the Gaza strip and these spit balls? They actually happen to be rockets.

My question to you is this, how many of you would have made it past that first spit ball before you flipped out and did something about it? When Israel had to give up land in a deal to secure peace with the very people that hated them and then those people continued to use that land to launch attacks on them it is pretty infuriating.

Hamas and Hezbollah are terrorist organizations and as far as I am concerned I am all for the bastards being wiped out. Israel has made it very clear who and what they are targeting, like the underground weapons exportation tunnels.

The innocent people they have killed is really a damn shame and it is unfortunate that they do not have the military power and precision that America has. I support Israel in this decision though and I know that people hold their own reservations but as I blog about these political actions I felt the need to discuss.

Democrats Make Great Magicians

So, how did your Sunday afternoon play out? Maybe you were one of the VERY few people who watched the Golden Globes, which have had declining viewership for the past couple years among other award shows for actors and actresses. Maybe you were like me, watching the Eagles pound the Giant's Superbowl chances into the ground (so happy right now). It was a good weekend for Pennsylvania all around, actually, as the Steelers beat the Chargers as well.

So while you were watching the television, I am willing to bet that you were NOT one of the democrats, like Harry Reid, on the floor sneakily trying to spend another $10 billion. Ten billion you say Chris? Well with such rough times and an Obama stimulus package on the way this ten billion must be to help the economy at this time, right? Well let's take a look at this fantastic use of tax payer dollars:

• $1 billion for a California water project designed to save 500 salmon – which would make each salmon worth far more than its weight in gold.
• $1 million annually for a five-year Wolf Compensation and Prevention Program to find non-lethal ways to deal with the wolves the federal government reintroduced into the state.
• $12 billion for the Smithsonian Institute to build a greenhouse in Maryland in order to preserve its orchid collection.
• $3 million in start-up funds for a road to nowhere through the Alaskan wilderness (exact route not yet determined) that could cost $17 to $34 million in order to complete.
• $5 million for botanical gardens in Hawaii (which boasts more flora per acre than any other state in the U.S.) and Florida (whose name is the Spanish word for “full of flowers.”

One billion for 500 salmon, or $2 million per fish to be exact, to save them? How about we negotiate with my proposal on this one? I will be liberal on the price of a fishing net and get a high end, top of the line fishing net from Bass Pros for $35. We buy 500 of these, one for every fish, and then we hand them out to a bunch of environmentalists. We catch these salmon and move them somewhere safe for the cost of a rented truck to move such cargo. Fishing nets will cost us about $17,500, which is a waste of money so liberals will love that, moving truck should cost under $5,000, so we will liberally round up to $25,000. I think I just undercut that proposal by at least a couple thousand dollars from $1 billion.

Now, twelve billion for a greenhouse to conserve orchids? How about we take a couple thousand dollars and throw them at seeds from a local nursery and call it a day shall we?

The list goes on and on and the Americans for a limited government only listed a few of the most ridiculous.

While America is consumed with their entertainment, these tax and spenders take the opportunity to discuss ways of throwing our money down the drain with one hand, and using the other to point out the national debt that we are in because of President Bush.

And now ladies and gentleman, pay no attention to the smoke and mirrors and direct your attention this way....

It's 2009! Let's Check In With That Global Warming!

Well it is the winter season across the United States, time to pull out those dog sleds and whip at those mutts to get across that finish down the line. This season must be a real downer though for all those dog sled racers out there due to the rascal that is Global Warming. It must look like the picture above out there, trading the runners for wheels and the winter coats for t-shirts!

The truth might actually surprise you, in at least one famous area for dog sled races, the race was canceled due to "too much snow!". That's right, in Frazee, Minnesota, the snow not only accumulated to more than 33 inches but conditions were also worsened by the fact that the snow was drifting too much and becoming unpack-able.

“The drifting aspect is just unbelievable,” said Streeper, a native of Canada who has been involved with dogsled racing for 25 years. “I’ve never seen anything like it.”

Of course critics of Global Warming, "End of Days" scenario due to human interaction, will have their hands full of arguments anyway. You see there is nothing BUT facts according to Global Warming shouters when the weather does anything. If the temperatures are warmer than average, it is Global Warming. If the temperatures are cooler than average, it is because Global Warming has screwed up the balance and is to blame. If temperatures stay the same, well Global Warming is on hiatus and will kick back in around 2015. Keep in mind that these are the same people that were screaming about a "Global Cooling" that we needed to be concerned about between 1945 and the 1970s'. Then again, those of us who are critics will sometimes make the ridiculous argument about how cows put more CO2 into the atmosphere than humans do.

That will lead us to this headline, "Ranchers Have A "Cow" Over Potential Methane Tax", need I say more?

"The American Farm Bureau Federation has even calculated potential tax numbers, taking the amount of CO2 coming out of livestock and checking it against the per-ton fees the feds charge commercial operators. The Bureau claims the tax could be $175 per head of dairy cattle, $87.50 per head of beef cattle, and $21 per hog."

Just when you thought there weren't any more crazily stupid taxes. Hey, at least if you put a tax on farmers our food prices will not go up, right? Settle down Chris, no need to think past the decision itself now and look at future consequences!

Happy New Year, let's raise a glass to that Global Warming shall we?