News

Friday, February 27, 2009

Government Spends, Spends, Spends..Leaving Us With Nothing


Pork spending is not party blind. With the new Omnibus bill, as the NYT has pointed out, has over 8,500 pork spending projects attached to it, with a little over 40% coming from the republican party.

Shame on you republicans. You are the party that was supposed to stand up for the ending of earmark projects. The hypocrisy now is a tidal wave that fluctuates back and forth across the aisles of congress. Personally, I want that tidal wave to take out all the politicians and clean out Washington completely. I wish I could point out a favorite politician on the republican side, I just can't. Right now the ones I like are not in Washington. Interested?:

1. Bobby Jindal
2. Mitt Romney
3. Sarah Palin
4. Mike Huckabee
5. Rick Santorum

This Omnibus bill is FULL of the types of earmarks that President Obama PROMISED he would end...


And one watchdog group said the bill provided nearly $8 billion for more than 8,500 pet projects favored by lawmakers, including $1.7 million for a honey bee laboratory in Weslaco, Tex.; $346,000 for research on apple fire blight in Michigan and New York; and $1.5 million for work on grapes and grape products, including wine.

Taxpayers for Common Sense, a watchdog group, counted more than 8,500 “Congressionally designated projects” in the bill and said the cost of these earmarks totaled $7.7 billion., up 3.4 percent from last year.

Among the pet projects is one to help producers of genuine pork, in contrast to the Congressional variety. The bill includes $1.8 million to conduct research in Iowa on “swine odor and manure management.”

The legislation includes $173,000 for research on asparagus production in Washington State; $206,000 for wool research in Montana, Texas and Wyoming; and $209,000 for efforts to improve blueberry production in Georgia.

It also includes $208,000 to control a weed known as cogongrass in Mississippi; $1.2 million to control cormorants in Michigan, Mississippi, New York and Vermont; $1 million to control Mormon crickets in Utah; and $162,000 to control rodents in Hawaii.


And then you have...

Representative Jim McGovern, Democrat of Massachusetts, said the bill “turns the page once and for all on the last eight years.”


Turns the page? Just because you turn the page doesn't mean it is for the better. Bush and the republicans for the past 8 years were wasteful spenders too and parted from their party's values, tripling down on spending, just because it is a different party's idea, is not the solution to this mess.

Timeline for Home Values


While not indicative of income levels and other economic factors, this chart does point out some surprising data!

Funny how we are rushing to such action on housing issues when we are just sliding back to a "normalcy" per say.

Here is Glenn Beck's take on the chart as well:

Wednesday, February 25, 2009

Mexico/U.S. Border Getting Worse!


NYT Article


PHOENIX — The raging drug war among cartels in Mexico and their push to expand operations in the United States has led to a wave of kidnappings, shootings and home invasions in Arizona, state and federal officials said at a legislative hearing on Monday.

The drug trade has long brought violence to the state, which serves as a hub as illicit drugs, like cocaine and marijuana, and illegal immigrants are smuggled to the rest of the nation.

Over all, in this city and surrounding Maricopa County, homicides and violent crime decreased last year. But the authorities are sounding an alarm over what they consider changing tactics in border-related crime that bear the marks of the violence in Mexico.

A home invasion here last year was carried out by attackers wielding military-style rifles and dressed in uniforms similar to a Phoenix police tactical unit. The discovery of grenades and other military-style weaponry bound for Mexico is becoming more routine, as is hostage-taking and kidnapping for ransom, law enforcement officials said.

The Phoenix police regularly receive reports involving a border-related kidnapping or hostage-taking in a home.

The Maricopa County attorney’s office said such cases rose to 241 last year from 48 in 2004, though investigators are not sure of the true number because they believe many crimes go unreported.

The violence in Mexico — where more than 6,000 people were killed in the last year in drug-related violence, double the number of the previous year — is “reaching into Arizona, and that is what is really alarming local and state law enforcement,” said Cmdr. Dan Allen of the State Department of Public Safety.

“We are finding home invasion and attacks involving people impersonating law enforcement officers,” Commander Allen told the State Senate Judiciary Committee, whose chairman, Jonathan Paton of the Tucson area, called the hearing. “They are very forceful and aggressive. They are heavily armed, and they threaten, assail, bind and sometimes kill victims.”

I have been ringing this alarm for about a year now, it keeps getting worse and worse!

This is going to lead to really bad situation VERY soon if something isn't done. The fact that I keep hearing that Obama wants to legalize illegal immigrants that have been in the country for five years is really disturbing too. Some of, if not a lot, are probably tied up in this drug problem and it will only make things easier for moving around.

This is very bad and something has to be done. I am actually surprised that this article showed up in the New York Times, I have been hearing that the reason we don't hear about this stuff more is because news sources that cover this topic receive death threats from the drug gangs and have even had reporters gone missing.

Unbelievable.

NYT Writer and I...Agree??


So I am thinking back to about a year ago when I got a lot of criticism from people with my views on GLBT marriage and such...funny thing about that whole incident is that I named the posting "Gay/Lesbian backlash in California" and it was renamed to "My One Problem with Gay Marriage". Heck it was fun to watch all the remarks.

For those that read through what I said, took a minute to get passed any anger and then followed up through the comments on my education through peers, they realized I was really not out to burn the idea at the stake or that I hated gays and lesbians, it was a purely religious side to things and that I fully supported a union with marriage rights as long as it wasn't a religious ceremony or called marriage.

Anyway, I digress, this week I read a fantastic opinion piece in the New York Times. APPARENTLY someone in the gay community agrees with me and pretty much wrote what I have been talking about from their point of view.....funny, I am sure that since it is coming from them it is perfectly fine.

It would work like this: Congress would bestow the status of federal civil unions on same-sex marriages and civil unions granted at the state level, thereby conferring upon them most or all of the federal benefits and rights of marriage. But there would be a condition: Washington would recognize only those unions licensed in states with robust religious-conscience exceptions, which provide that religious organizations need not recognize same-sex unions against their will. The federal government would also enact religious-conscience protections of its own. All of these changes would be enacted in the same bill.

Hmmm...it does sound oddly familiar!

Click the link to read more, they go much more in depth and I thought it was a great piece.

Obviously we write about different things and I happen to list off my concerns BUT this writer and I come to the same conclusions on a solution. Thought it was interesting!

I honestly do hope that something like this can be done for the GLBT community sometime soon, for sure.

Pork? I Don't See No Pork...


So Obama promised that there wouldn't be any more pork spending and earmarks on bills while he was in office.

Words are words, get over it, promises were meant to be broken.

Here are just some of the earmark "pork" spendings in the current spending for stimulus:


$185,000 for coral reef research and preservation in Maui County, Hawaii

$55,000 in meteorological equipment for Pierce College in Woodland Hills, Calif.

$9.9 million for science enhancement at historically black colleges in South Carolina.

In addition to the basic operations of government, the new budget includes 775 pages of earmarks, funding programs that include local museums, colleges and infrastructure projects.

Among the earmarked projects in the bill are $764,000 for the Lake George Watershed Protection Initiative in New York, requested by Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, New York
Democrat;

$9.9 million for South Carolina's historically black colleges and universities, requested by House Majority Whip James E. Clyburn, South Carolina Democrat;

$1.1 million requested by Senate Republican Conference Chairman Lamar Alexander and Sen. Bob Corker, both of Tennessee, for water treatment plant improvements in Tennessee's Unicoi County, as well as $300,000 for a sewer extension project in another county.

Examples of Earmarks in the Omnibus

$713,625 Woody Biomass at SUNY-ESF. Walsh and Schumer sponsors

$951,500 Sustainable Las Vegas. Berkeley and Reid sponsors.

$24,000 A+ for Abstinence. Specter is sponsor.

$300,000 Montana World Trade Center. Rehberg sponsor.

$950,000 Myrtle Beach International Trade and Convention Center. Graham sponsor.

$200,000 Oil Region Alliance. Peterson sponsor.

$190,000 Buffalo Bill Historical Center, Cody, WY for digitizing and editing the Cody collection. Barbara Cubin is the sponsor

$143,000 Las Vegas Natural History Museum, Las Vegas, NV, to expand natural history education programs. Sponsored by Harry Reid

$238,000 for the Polynesian Voyaging Society, Honolulu, HI, for educational programs. Sen. Daniel Inouye is the sponsor.

$381,000 for Jazz at Lincoln Center, New York, NY for music education programs. Jerrold Nadler is the sponsor.

Rep. Jerry Lewis of California, the top Republican on the House Appropriations Committee, would spend $3.8 million on a Needles, Calif., highway.

Sen. Thad Cochran of Mississippi, the top Republican on Senate Appropriations, backs earmarks including a $950,000 nature education center in Moss Point, Miss. He defends earmarks.


Gotta love hypocrisy people.

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

A Democrat Economic Mess

I can't believe that I have to go back and point out facts to people about how we got to where we are today.

I still continue to hear how Obama inherited this mess and how Bush caused it. Frankly this is all I have to write because I will instead lead you to the facts for you to educate yourself.

New York Times article from September 1999

In a move that could help increase home ownership rates among minorities and low-income consumers, the Fannie Mae Corporation is easing the credit requirements on loans that it will purchase from banks and other lenders.

The action, which will begin as a pilot program involving 24 banks in 15 markets -- including the New York metropolitan region -- will encourage those banks to extend home mortgages to individuals whose credit is generally not good enough to qualify for conventional loans. Fannie Mae officials say they hope to make it a nationwide program by next spring.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, has been under increasing pressure from the Clinton Administration to expand mortgage loans among low and moderate income people and felt pressure from stock holders to maintain its phenomenal growth in profits.

In addition, banks, thrift institutions and mortgage companies have been pressing Fannie Mae to help them make more loans to so-called subprime borrowers. These borrowers whose incomes, credit ratings and savings are not good enough to qualify for conventional loans, can only get loans from finance companies that charge much higher interest rates -- anywhere from three to four percentage points higher than conventional loans.

''Fannie Mae has expanded home ownership for millions of families in the 1990's by reducing down payment requirements,'' said Franklin D. Raines, Fannie Mae's chairman and chief executive officer. ''Yet there remain too many borrowers whose credit is just a notch below what our underwriting has required who have been relegated to paying significantly higher mortgage rates in the so-called subprime market.''

Demographic information on these borrowers is sketchy. But at least one study indicates that 18 percent of the loans in the subprime market went to black borrowers, compared to 5 per cent of loans in the conventional loan market.

In moving, even tentatively, into this new area of lending, Fannie Mae is taking on significantly more risk, which may not pose any difficulties during flush economic times. But the government-subsidized corporation may run into trouble in an economic downturn, prompting a government rescue similar to that of the savings and loan industry in the 1980's.

''From the perspective of many people, including me, this is another thrift industry growing up around us,'' said Peter Wallison a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute. ''If they fail, the government will have to step up and bail them out the way it stepped up and bailed out the thrift industry.''

Under Fannie Mae's pilot program, consumers who qualify can secure a mortgage with an interest rate one percentage point above that of a conventional, 30-year fixed rate mortgage of less than $240,000 -- a rate that currently averages about 7.76 per cent. If the borrower makes his or her monthly payments on time for two years, the one percentage point premium is dropped.

Fannie Mae, the nation's biggest underwriter of home mortgages, does not lend money directly to consumers. Instead, it purchases loans that banks make on what is called the secondary market. By expanding the type of loans that it will buy, Fannie Mae is hoping to spur banks to make more loans to people with less-than-stellar credit ratings.

Fannie Mae officials stress that the new mortgages will be extended to all potential borrowers who can qualify for a mortgage. But they add that the move is intended in part to increase the number of minority and low income home owners who tend to have worse credit ratings than non-Hispanic whites.

Home ownership has, in fact, exploded among minorities during the economic boom of the 1990's. The number of mortgages extended to Hispanic applicants jumped by 87.2 per cent from 1993 to 1998, according to Harvard University's Joint Center for Housing Studies. During that same period the number of African Americans who got mortgages to buy a home increased by 71.9 per cent and the number of Asian Americans by 46.3 per cent.

In contrast, the number of non-Hispanic whites who received loans for homes increased by 31.2 per cent.

Despite these gains, home ownership rates for minorities continue to lag behind non-Hispanic whites, in part because blacks and Hispanics in particular tend to have on average worse credit ratings.

In July, the Department of Housing and Urban Development proposed that by the year 2001, 50 percent of Fannie Mae's and Freddie Mac's portfolio be made up of loans to low and moderate-income borrowers. Last year, 44 percent of the loans Fannie Mae purchased were from these groups.

The change in policy also comes at the same time that HUD is investigating allegations of racial discrimination in the automated underwriting systems used by Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to determine the credit-worthiness of credit applicants.



Not convincing enough? How about proof of the republicans trying to warn of the impending mess back in 2001, 2003, 2004 and the democrats responses here:


Plain and simple, the democrats refused to do anything about Freedie Mac and Fanny May out of "fairness" to lower income people and to line their own pockets with payouts from the institutions.


Monday, February 23, 2009

Political Cartoon Madness


This cartoon has proven to me that the people who cry "racism" are more than likely racists themselves.

How do I come to that conclusion? Because it was okay to call Bush every name in the book including, all the time, monkey or chimp, yet, this is somehow racist.

Someone said that the cartoon represents what you interpret it to be, that what you see in it is how you read it.

I happen to think that it refers to the politicians, no party wholly responsible, that wrote the plan being "unintelligent". I could also read it as "A stimulus plan so horribly stupid, a chimp could have written it". Not to mention that Obama only signed the damn thing, he didn't write it!

Most notably, this cartoon was REALLY about a chimp that was shot in Connecticut that went out of control and attacked a woman. IF, that is a big "if", it had been published without this event, I MAY go along with the whole racism thing.

Fact of the matter is that Sharpton, and people like him, will chase anything they can and shout racism to KEEP RACISM ALIVE, because that is how he makes his money. If we all got together and put race aside and sang "heal the world" together, hand in hand, Sharpton would be a broke ass biotch.

If you look at this cartoon and see racism, you are too emotional and read too far into things to manifest a problem just so you can throw it into some one's face. Maybe we need to take a step back from all this political correctness and start an ability to laugh at some things instead of trying to pick a fight all the time to separate us from each other and pit us against one another!

Until the cartoonist comes out and says that it was meant to be racist, I am sticking to an "unintelligent" agenda behind the cartoon.

What This Stimulus Plan Means To Me


What has this current administration taught me in a matter of weeks? That there has been an end of "Personal Responsibility".

What was once a decently large enough problem, unemployment and welfare benefits, is on a fast track to becoming one of the biggest problems. There is already a good portion of people that take advantage of the welfare and unemployment payments by sitting around and milking the government for every cent they can get without ever having an intention of getting a job and contributing to the very tax dollars that feed them everyday.

Yet, we are doubling down on an already broken system and ADDING to these two circumstances. Don't get me wrong, I understand that the current economy brings these two benefits into the spotlight of the political arena because people are getting laid off and need to use them. This is the equivalent of trying to fix a toaster with a fork and knife while it is still plugged in. In order to fix the problem you have to take things in steps. The government should have taken this opportunity to also go back and add restrictions to these benefits to encourage people to get off their asses and continue to look for work, even in a tough economic time. No one wants to see someone that works hard get laid off and unable to find work, I understand this situation and I think they do need some temporary help BUT that help needs to end at some point.

This administration has also taught me that I can make stupid decisions in life and then pass the blame to people that "duped" me and expect a "bailout" from people that had nothing to do with the situation. I have also learned that this "stimulus" plan encourages VERY bad behavior. While my tax dollars, and my children's and their children's, bail out people that decided that even though they only make $15,000 a year they can afford a $500,000 house, I have been doing some thinking. As a tax payer, I am not benefiting from this plan at all. As a matter of fact, I am being punished for doing things the RIGHT WAY. My wife and I did research, searched for a house, looked at what we could afford, mulled over the type of mortgage and then made a responsible decision. Yet, those that bought more than they can afford are being taken care of while we foot the bill.

This makes me wonder, why should I pay my mortgage at all? Why can't I benefit from MY OWN dollars at work? I could place blame as well, heck my child needs food on the table and clothes on her back, so I would think that is more important than that mortgage payment! Well, along those same lines, if I lose my job, why even look for another one? Why can't I milk the system for everything I can?

The question is generally a question of "Why should I have any "Personal" responsibility when I can depend on the government to take care of me?"

I will tell you why I would never stoop to those levels, because I refuse to be beholden to anyone. I refuse to sit and suck the milk from the government cash cow BECAUSE I have news for you, that cash cow is actually China's cow. I refuse to do these things because "Personal Responsibility" is extremely important to me, to the point where if I can't fix a problem on my own I get migraines and dread the thought of having to ask someone for help (Just ask my wife about a leaky faucet pipe situation this past weekend).

People have been talking about all these "rights" that don't exist except for in the minds of people that feel they are ENTITLED to them. People have a "right to own a home"? People have a "right to health care"? People have a "right to transportation"? A right to "food"? These are all extremely nice things to have, but by no means have they ever been considered "rights". As a conservative I honestly do wish that everyone one day would have these things but not at the expense of other people. There should be an avenue that people are able to afford them on their own.

Speaking of the housing market, why is it that we should have the right to own a house? What ever happened to renting? What the heck is so wrong with that??? These people that made the worst decisions will lose their house, even after our tax dollars are thrown into the mix. So they renegotiate their mortgage, if they still can't afford the monthly payment, they are screwed, which means WE THE TAX PAYERS are screwed.

They will lose their house and will have to move on to renting an apartment, while they are renting they might want to mull over their bad decisions, learn from them, move on and do the right thing next time.

We can not continue to reward stupidity, greed and incompetence in this country!

Racist, Sexist and Bigots of the Conservative Right Wing


There is a lot of false information and slander out there aimed at the republicans and conservatives in this country, especially it's representing politicians, and it is really getting under my skin.

I happen to sometimes, admittedly incorrectly, labeled a whole party of people as guilty of Liberal tactics. I have said that they think with their heart, only, and not their brains. I have said that they care more about themselves than of an unborn baby fetus. I have talked about how there has been a move in the party to "hate the rich" for no apparent reasons. I have probably said some other things as well, but I have always aimed these words at THOSE individuals within that party and have never labeled all the people within that party as guilty of all of the above.

More and more I happen to be running into leftist, anarchist, enviro-friendly nut job and Marxist bloggers who happen to be labeling the WHOLE right wing people of being:

1. Racist-(despite putting Michael Steele into the RNC chairman position)
2. Sexist-(despite being EXTREMELY overjoyed with John McCain's pick of Sarah Palin for VP position)
3. Bigots-(despite watching Obama spit at the republican ideas for the stimulus bill)
4. Heartless-(For things like not voting for a child health care plan *because it covered children up to the age of 30 years old*)
5. Rich, or sometimes referred to as "the Man"-(I happen to like to call them things like "My Boss", "My Employer", "The companies I buy my shit from", basically people I depend on)
6. Capitalist Pigs-(Forgive me if I would like to work hard to enjoy the benefits of said work, I would rather have things I have earned than have everyone receive the same brown shoes and a loaf of bread a week)

Yada, yada, yada, the list goes on.

These people that resort to this name-calling are not singling out people, they are blanketing the whole party with these statements and will proudly proclaim so.

I happened to watch Alexandra Pelosi's documentary on HBO over this past week on the G.O.P. supporters across the country during this past election cycle. While the most memorable scenes are of those that were extremely racist or hateful, the first half of the film represented full-blooded Americans that were extremely proud of their country and held conservative political views and values. It is the first, and probably last, time that I can have some respect for a Pelosi. The film, while not representative of the whole party's mentality, did represent a semi-fair selection of interviews of republican citizens.

I then tortured myself by watching Bill Mahr's show, where he and, one of the politicians in my list of "Most evil politicians for this country", Maxine Waters actually briefly discussed this Pelosi documentary. Maxine Waters said "Did you see that guy that was crying that he was upset with the direction the country has been taking? I mean that is crazy". Right Maxine, because there can only be people out there who hold the same socialist policies and laws that you feel are correct. Bill Mahr, in his typical fashion, pointed out all of the racists in the documentary (which was about a ten minute segment of the film). These people love blanket statements and will continue to make money by spouting them.

While there is a selection of people that may have lead to the stereotypes listed above, there is a new generation of politicians coming up through the ranks that are not influenced by race, sex or other circumstances. I happen to be of that mindset. I have found myself deeply offended when referred to as a "racist" or a "sexist". I have had liberal bloggers say to me that "If you are that offended and must defend your position online, it means that it is probably true because you are so uncomfortable". I would argue that those people that are racist or sexist are proud of it and would happily label themselves as such. I happen to believe that I am offended because it is THAT type of mentality that continues to tarnish the republican and conservative brands, AND I FULLY believe that this is exactly the aim of the people that continue to label as such.

Let me tell you how easy it is for me to be a conservative, it is extremely simple:

I believe that I am entitled to "nothing", that I have to earn what I have, that if I have a problem I should go to my family, church, community and then "MAYBE" the government in some sort of way.

I believe that our tax dollars should go to roads, bridges, tunnels, the country's defense, defense research and infrastructure and not much else.

I believe that "legal" immigrants have an enormous opportunity here in America but that "illegal" immigrants give them a bad reputation and make all immigrants a political target.

I think too much attention is paid to republican spending and never compared to the spending we put out for welfare, immigrant services, unemployment benefits and pork spending in bills.

I think that our economy has taken a bigger hit than it had to because our liberal media was more interested in tarnishing Bush's reputation than delivering quality news coverage, by instead making the economy seem worse than it was, leading to a psychological effect of the citizens.

I believe that if a liberal who labels the entire party as racist, based on people like Beck, Limbaugh and Hannity, would sit with me for the 9 hours straight of radio, I would prove to them that there is nothing racist about their statements and are often mis-quoted.

I believe that the saying "Give a man a fish and he will eat for a day. Teach a man to fish and he will eat for a lifetime" is a saying that our policies should live by. That government handouts only create a stronger mentality for more handouts in the future instead of teaching them how to get ahead by themselves with a tough lesson that has to be lived through.


I am a Conservative and I am damn proud of it and I happen to not fall under any of the terms 1-7.

Wednesday, February 18, 2009

A Message To Pro-Lifers


Honestly, read the title, if you are Pro-Choice this article is not for you. As a warning, I would even say that it will probably piss you off, why do it to yourself?

I have had over nine months now to think about my pro-life stance. I have always been pro-life and feel that it is an important part of my life for personal, political and religious reasons. Yet, I realized something about two weeks ago, saying something without direct experience (even with a passion for your reasoning) is nothing compared to living an experience and THEN saying it.

I am PRO LIFE.

Two weeks ago my daughter, Alexandria, was born. I rush home to hold her every night after work. Her crying when she needs to be changed or when she is hungry is not annoying, it makes me smile (until the stench of the diaper hits me). She makes me realize why my stance has been so important all along.

I am not, however, diminishing the stances of those pro-lifers that do not have children. In fact, living through the experience, I have even more respect for those who take the stance without children.

I do find it funny that I rip into liberals for their "over-emotional" responses to everything. It seems like all of their political choices are based on emotions and not reasoning. Yet, one of the most important issues (politically), abortion, is something that DOES take a lot of heart because it involves the life of someone, the liberals come up short. I guess conservatives do have a heart after all.

That picture above is my daughter, she is the reason I am pro-life now more than ever.

Find your reason(s) to be pro-life.


Bonus:


rape0.3 % (0.1-0.6 %)
incest0.03 % (0.01-0.1 %)
physical life of mother0.2 % (0.1-0.3 %)
physical health of mother1.0 % (0.1-3 %)
fetal health0.5 % (0.1-1.0 %)
mental health of motherdepends on definition
"personal choice"
--too young/immature/not ready for responsibility
--economic
--to avoid adjusting life
--mother single or in poor relationship
--enough children already
--sex selection
98% (78-99 %)
--(32 %)
--30% (21-36 %)
--(16 %)
--(12-13 %)
--(4-8 %)
--(<0.1>

The Border Crisis, A Win & A Loss

Scratch the "work" part from that cartoon though.

I honestly can't believe this country any more. The Arizona rancher, Barnett, whom I just recently wrote about who secured illegal immigrants on his property totaling over 12,000. Sixteen of these sued Barnett recently for $32 million.

Well there is some really sad news on that front.

While Barnett did not have to pay $32 million (which would have been impossible anyway) the jury found that he did NOT violate their civil liberties (because they don't have them here) but DOES have to pay for punitive damages on claims of assault and the infliction of emotional distress.

Are you kidding me?

Barnett ought to counter-sue the Mexican American Legal Defense and Education Fund for that original $32 million due to the infliction of emotional distress he encountered while enduring the capturing of an average of 3 immigrants a day. Add into that the property damage, animal abuse, forced entry, theft, trespassing, littering and anything else they can claim on behalf of the MADEF's clients.

Heck, that is only $2,666 per illegal immigrant that he caught. Pretty measly if you ask me.

Where is the rancher's rights? Why is it that we seem to reward those who break the law more and more every day and ignore and turn a cold shoulder to those that carry this country's consequences on their backs? It makes no sense.

To make matters even worse:

One of the 16 illegal immigrants allowed to bring the lawsuit is a convicted felon deported from the U.S. after a 1993 arrest on federal drug charges, court records show. Gerardo Gonzalez, 38, was convicted in September 1993 of possession of a controlled substance for sale and ordered deported to his home country.


So Barnett has to not only pay illegals, essentially so they can cross his own property, but he also has to pay someone who is a convicted felon for doing the same things before.

The reduction in the payment is not, however, the good news on the border crisis.

The GREAT news is that border agents, Ignacio Ramos and Jose Compean, have been released from prison!

Ramos and Compean were sentenced to 11 years and 12 years respectively for the 2005 shooting of Osvaldo Aldrete-Davila, a Mexican national now in prison for attempting to smuggle hundreds of pounds of marijuana in to the U.S.

Aldrete-Davila was shot in the buttocks while attempting to flee along the border in Fabens, Texas, which lies 10 miles southeast of El Paso. Prosecutors say Ramos and Compean tried to cover up evidence of the incident; the border agents say they were defending themselves in the line of duty.


Should we be more upset about two guys protecting us all for a small cover up or should we be upset with them for non-fatally shooting an illegal immigrant, smuggling hundreds of pounds of drugs in the country, in the ass.

My question, why not in the head?

Chris! That is so mean, you are such a hate-monger!

No, he, like other drug smugglers, kill many each year or over the span of time with their products. It would have been doing the American people a favor.

Barnett, I am sorry to hear your result but you do have a large population of proud Americans standing behind you ready to join your fight.

Ramos and Compean, welcome back and God bless you.


Tuesday, February 17, 2009

NYT Is, Once Again, Off The Mark


I feel bad for the New York Times, it seems like no one there can part from the typical liberal rhetoric book and come up with a new story in regards to politics.

In one of today's articles, Obama Gains G.O.P. Support From Governors, the NYT goes completely off the mark and starts discussing governors that went for Obama's plan for very obvious reasons, none of which have to do with a light bulb going off over their heads that it is a "good idea".

The most obvious error is in regards to California's Gov. Schwarzenegger. Since when was Arnold a republican? Even if he was, it is painfully obvious that the state is HEAVILY liberal (hence the budget concerns). Hey Arnold, if the state and local governments weren't spending money like crazy, like all liberal policies, you wouldn't have a problem like you have today. It is liberal policies that have gotten you into this mess.

Across the country, from California’s Arnold Schwarzenegger to Florida’s Charlie Crist and New England’s Jim Douglas in Vermont and M. Jodi Rell in Connecticut, Republican governors showed in the stimulus debate that they could be allies with Mr. Obama even as Congressional Republicans spurned him.


As for the rest, just take a look at the states! Conneticut, Vermont and California? These are all liberal states. The only exception was Florida during Bush's run because of his brother. Other than that it is liberal.

How does that effect these governors? You are supposed to represent your constituents, ESPECIALLY (and unfortunately) if you are planning on getting re-elected!

And Republicans in both chambers derided what they described, often misleadingly, as pork spending for the likes of marsh mouse preservation.


Misleadingly? Do some research NYT, the whole damn thing is a pork spending spree. I will be doing a follow up of a lot of that pork in the near future when more details come to light.
This whole article is a sham and a fluff piece to reinforce a false sense of security and entitlement for democrats.

Pat yourselves on the back, you identified democrats identified as republicans as democrats...whoopdedoo!

Guess I Won't See A Muslim Care Bear Anytime Soon


This (gentle)man, Hassan, started the Bridges TV network post 9/11 in order to counter the anti-Islam image out there of Muslims being violent people. Joined by his wife, they seemed to be at least on the right track.

Then Hassan's wife wanted a divorce, he responded with a swift decapitation of his wife.

Had it been under Sharia Law, under the conditions of bringing disgrace to the family with such a request, this would have been just another day in the life of an EXTREMIST Muslim. I say that knowing that not all Muslims are violent, those who are guided by Sharia Law are more likely to be though.

Sharia Law, although it seems like only something you would find in the middle east, you are now able to find it in some areas of the United Kingdom AND, if all goes according to plan for "diversity" here in America, you may soon find it here.

Well all I have to say about this is that it is a shame that this Hassan was such a hypocrite and shed a negative light on the religion. That being said, it was obviously bad PR for the Muslim community as well.

Friday, February 13, 2009

Pelosi Helps Obama Break More Promises


Does anyone remember Obama saying that he would make things public before they went into law? How about how bills would be public for 48 hours before anything was passed?

Well the Senate and House are "rushing" this stimulus plan right through that consideration.

Even if they did make it public there would be a problem, the bill is 1,071 pages long. Would anyone be able to read and comprehend that in 48 hours? Let alone be able to study and debate said ideas in the bill?

This is the BIGGEST spending project by our government, probably of the world, of all time! OF ALL TIME! Yet, we can't give it AT LEAST 48 hours for consideration.

This is so incredibly scary. I can not believe our country has come to this, especially in my lifetime. To see Americans roll over for these scumbag politicians and their wasteful, pitiful, sorry excuse for an economy cure. Just wait until you find out the wasteful spending in this thing. You won't hear about it until the next couple weeks when people finally get to read the whole damn thing, by then it will be too late.

You Obama voters, have only yourselves to blame when this flaming turd hits the fan. Thank God the republicans didn't vote for this (by the way, Arlen Spector, you are not getting re-elected in our state..jerkoff).

So why would they rush this stimulus plan through? Obviously because the country is in dire need of such a plan.

No.

It had to be rushed through today because Speaker Nancy Pelosi is going on an eight day European trip.

Doesn't that make you feel all warm inside to know that her trip is more important than almost a trillion taxpayer dollars?

Let's get back to this economy destroyer of a bill...

At 1,071 pages in 48 hours, you would have to:

Read 535 pages each day
Read 22 pages an hour

I am guessing you aren't getting any sleep.

This is the "change" liberals were looking for I guess. Pushing bills without a second thought, look or care.

Congrats Obama voters

A Closer Look At Maniac Obama Supporters



Wolf, an emotional story? This was a demand. I almost wrote "request". Mrs. Hughes here, like many other Obama supporters, EXPECT that the new administration will take care of all of their bills like the mortgage, car, heating, health care, education and anything else they feel they are entitled to.

Let's take a step back for a moment though and really discuss this. This woman obviously needs help but does she NEED her own house with a kitchen and everything she demanded? Essentially her argument here is that everyone deserves a house. What ever happened to renting? Obviously we should just start building a house for everyone now, whether or not they can afford it, because they are obviously viewing it as a "right" to own.

Just one case? Remember this from the campaign trail?:



Then we have Julio over here.



Where do I even begin with this guy? First of all Julio, switch your major. Communications or a DJ? Your communication skills, verbal skills and presence are horrendous. That aside, the economy started it's decline within the last year, you have been working at McDonald's for four years. Do not blame the economy for your job situation, take a closer look at yourself and change a little bit. Read a few books here and there, switch majors, buy some nice dress clothes and then we can talk.

Fast forward this video to about 4:10



This guy wants extended welfare or unemployment benefits, apparently to the tune of about $3,000 a month. Basically this guy is asking Obama to make sure it is possible for people like him to sit at home on their ass every day, instead of work, to be able to support the lifestyle that he wants to have. A lifestyle that would not only be comparable to those who DO WORK, but in a lot of cases, even better! I will be the first to admit that at $3,000 a month, this guy would be making more than me, if he sat at home! I have a wife, child and mortgage and I am doing just fine, I have nothing to complain about, yet this guy wants to be able to not work and make more than me...ha ha this is hilarious and very typical of a good majority of liberal voters.

As a little added bonus for your weekend viewing, here is the post-interview with our friend Julio:

Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Roger Barnett, An American Hero And Example

Washington Times Article

An Arizona man who has waged a 10-year campaign to stop a flood of illegal immigrants from crossing his property is being sued by 16 Mexican nationals who accuse him of conspiring to violate their civil rights when he stopped them at gunpoint on his ranch on the U.S.-Mexico border.


I am going to go out on a limb here and say that these "illegal immigrants" don't exactly have American civil rights and sure as hell can't cling to whatever sorry excuse for human rights they had in Mexico while on American soil.

It seems like a stretch that there would be such a story about a measly 16 illegal immigrants though, so why is Roger getting so much attention? The article goes on to tell of an even crazier running history with these immigrants:

Mr. Barnett acknowledged that he had turned over 12,000 illegal immigrants to the Border Patrol since 1998.


That is more than just a minor problem and borders on the side of a plague if you ask me. That is 1,200 a year or, broken down even further, a little over catching 3 a day.

Chris, you are just an evil conservative who doesn't care about human rights! Okay, well let's continue with the article to find out more about these "innocent" immigrant types:

Mr. Barnett told The Washington Times in a 2002 interview that he began rounding up illegal immigrants after they started to vandalize his property, northeast of Douglas along Arizona Highway 80. He said the immigrants tore up water pumps, killed calves, destroyed fences and gates, stole trucks and broke into his home.

Some of his cattle died from ingesting the plastic bottles left behind by the immigrants, he said, adding that he installed a faucet on an 8,000-gallon water tank so the immigrants would stop damaging the tank to get water.

Mr. Barnett said some of the ranch´s established immigrant trails were littered with trash 10 inches deep, including human waste, used toilet paper, soiled diapers, cigarette packs, clothes, backpacks, empty 1-gallon water bottles, chewing-gum wrappers and aluminum foil - which supposedly is used to pack the drugs the immigrant smugglers give their "clients" to keep them running.


Well that last one is something that even environmentalists can get pissed off about! The fact of the matter is that the media and public make these events out to seem like desperate people escaping a hard government, a bunch that are just down on their luck and need a break here in America. While that may be true for a lot of them, we are neglecting to realize that we are allowing criminals, drug smugglers and drug lords into this country by turning a blind eye. Not to mention the economic troubles that they make and feed into like welfare, social security, health issues and others!

The immigrants are represented at trial by the Mexican American Legal Defense and Educational Fund (MALDEF), which also charged that Sheriff Dever did nothing to prevent Mr. Barnett from holding their clients at "gunpoint, yelling obscenities at them and kicking one of the women."


Number one, this foundation shouldn't even have a case and the fact that they do just points to the mess this country has become under liberal policies passed over the years, undoubtedly by the liberals involved in such organizations AND to top that off, the fact that I am sure some liberal readers would even come to their defense and spout some BS about how their rights overpower the rights of this rancher somehow. Number two, I have lived in the back-neck country of Pennsylvania my whole life, if there is a sign that says "No trespassing, violators will be shot" you can be damn certain you better not step foot on that property because you WILL be shot and I highly doubt there would be any case or group in support of you like these for people who aren't even CITIZENS! It is absolutely ridiculous.

This article ends with a power paragraph and the main reason I am doing this post. It speaks of the mentality of the people that deal with these situations on a daily basis:

"This is my land. I´m the victim here," Mr. Barnett said. "When someone´s home and loved ones are in jeopardy and the government seemingly can´t do anything about it, I feel justified in taking matters into my own hands. And I always watch my back."

It is my opinion that you will see more and more of this mentality manifesting as the current administration's socialist policies play out. The anger, frustration, outrage and action will start in the heartland of this country, the places that people say things about like "If you want to know what this country is all about you visit -----" and it will spread throughout the land as people become more and more frustrated with their government's actions and most importantly, in circumstances like this, inaction. I have even heard Obama speak of the heartland like this, heck, he just went to Elkhart, Indiana to talk to country folk about their hardships, yet you take a look at the voting record over the years of middle Americans and what do you find? Red States.

These are people that REALLY understand what this country is going through. People that are more concerned with getting up before the sun to tend to their livestock and fields than about sitting in a Starbucks on a Saturday afternoon sipping their latte and blogging about Global Warming in the Artic, a place they have never even been to. People who can't rely on the speed of the government or law enforcement to make it within hours, living by the seconds that matter and defending their property and lively hood. People who understand that respecting some one's rights only flys until your rights are infringed upon.

Middle-America is a good thermometer for the mentality of the citizens and where things are going and even if the city people haven't felt it yet, they will soon enough.

The mercury is rising, where do you stand?

Everyone Agrees Government Should Take Action???


Here is a list of economists that disagree with the President on the above mentioned statement:

(By the way, this is only a little over half of the ones that have even signed, click here for the rest)

  • Burton Abrams, Univ. of Delaware
  • Douglas Adie, Ohio University
  • Ryan Amacher, Univ. of Texas at Arlington
  • J.J. Arias, Georgia College & State University
  • Howard Baetjer, Jr., Towson University
  • Stacie Beck, Univ. of Delaware
  • Don Bellante, Univ. of South Florida
  • James Bennett, George Mason University
  • Bruce Benson, Florida State University
  • Sanjai Bhagat, Univ. of Colorado at Boulder
  • Mark Bils, Univ. of Rochester
  • Alberto Bisin, New York University
  • Walter Block, Loyola University New Orleans
  • Cecil Bohanon, Ball State University
  • Michele Boldrin, Washington University in St. Louis
  • Donald Booth, Chapman University
  • Michael Bordo, Rutgers University
  • Samuel Bostaph, Univ. of Dallas
  • Scott Bradford, Brigham Young University
  • Genevieve Briand, Eastern Washington University
  • George Brower, Moravian College
  • James Buchanan, Nobel laureate
  • Richard Burdekin, Claremont McKenna College
  • Henry Butler, Northwestern University
  • William Butos, Trinity College
  • Peter Calcagno, College of Charleston
  • Bryan Caplan, George Mason University
  • Art Carden, Rhodes College
  • James Cardon, Brigham Young University
  • Dustin Chambers, Salisbury University
  • Emily Chamlee-Wright, Beloit College
  • V.V. Chari, Univ. of Minnesota
  • Barry Chiswick, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago
  • Lawrence Cima, John Carroll University
  • J.R. Clark, Univ. of Tennessee at Chattanooga
  • Gian Luca Clementi, New York University
  • R. Morris Coats, Nicholls State University
  • John Cochran, Metropolitan State College
  • John Cochrane, Univ. of Chicago
  • John Cogan, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
  • John Coleman, Duke University
  • Boyd Collier, Tarleton State University
  • Robert Collinge, Univ. of Texas at San Antonio
  • Lee Coppock, Univ. of Virginia
  • Mario Crucini, Vanderbilt University
  • Christopher Culp, Univ. of Chicago
  • Kirby Cundiff, Northeastern State University
  • Antony Davies, Duquesne University
  • John Dawson, Appalachian State University
  • Clarence Deitsch, Ball State University
  • Arthur Diamond, Jr., Univ. of Nebraska at Omaha
  • John Dobra, Univ. of Nevada, Reno
  • James Dorn, Towson University
  • Christopher Douglas, Univ. of Michigan, Flint
  • Floyd Duncan, Virginia Military Institute
  • Francis Egan, Trinity College
  • John Egger, Towson University
  • Kenneth Elzinga, Univ. of Virginia
  • Paul Evans, Ohio State University
  • Eugene Fama, Univ. of Chicago
  • W. Ken Farr, Georgia College & State University
  • Hartmut Fischer, Univ. of San Francisco
  • Fred Foldvary, Santa Clara University
  • Murray Frank, Univ. of Minnesota
  • Peter Frank, Wingate University
  • Timothy Fuerst, Bowling Green State University
  • B. Delworth Gardner, Brigham Young University
  • John Garen, Univ. of Kentucky
  • Rick Geddes, Cornell University
  • Aaron Gellman, Northwestern University
  • William Gerdes, Clarke College
  • Michael Gibbs, Univ. of Chicago
  • Stephan Gohmann, Univ. of Louisville
  • Rodolfo Gonzalez, San Jose State University
  • Richard Gordon, Penn State University
  • Peter Gordon, Univ. of Southern California
  • Ernie Goss, Creighton University
  • Paul Gregory, Univ. of Houston
  • Earl Grinols, Baylor University
  • Daniel Gropper, Auburn University
  • R.W. Hafer, Southern Illinois
  • University, Edwardsville
  • Arthur Hall, Univ. of Kansas
  • Steve Hanke, Johns Hopkins
  • Stephen Happel, Arizona State University
  • Frank Hefner, College of Charleston
  • Ronald Heiner, George Mason University
  • David Henderson, Hoover Institution, Stanford University
  • Robert Herren, North Dakota State University
  • Gailen Hite, Columbia University
  • Steven Horwitz, St. Lawrence University
  • John Howe, Univ. of Missouri, Columbia
  • Jeffrey Hummel, San Jose State University
  • Bruce Hutchinson, Univ. of Tennessee at Chattanooga
  • Brian Jacobsen, Wisconsin Lutheran College
  • Jason Johnston, Univ. of Pennsylvania
  • Boyan Jovanovic, New York University
  • Jonathan Karpoff, Univ. of Washington
  • Barry Keating, Univ. of Notre Dame
  • Naveen Khanna, Michigan State University
  • Nicholas Kiefer, Cornell University
  • Daniel Klein, George Mason University
  • Paul Koch, Univ. of Kansas
  • Narayana Kocherlakota, Univ. of Minnesota
  • Marek Kolar, Delta College
  • Roger Koppl, Fairleigh Dickinson University
  • Kishore Kulkarni, Metropolitan State College of Denver
  • Deepak Lal, UCLA
  • George Langelett, South Dakota State University
  • James Larriviere, Spring Hill College
  • Robert Lawson, Auburn University
  • John Levendis, Loyola University New Orleans
  • David Levine, Washington University in St. Louis
  • Peter Lewin, Univ. of Texas at Dallas
  • Dean Lillard, Cornell University
  • Zheng Liu, Emory University
  • Alan Lockard, Binghampton University
  • Edward Lopez, San Jose State University
  • John Lunn, Hope College
  • Glenn MacDonald, Washington
  • University in St. Louis
  • Michael Marlow, California
  • Polytechnic State University
  • Deryl Martin, Tennessee Tech University
  • Dale Matcheck, Northwood University
  • Deirdre McCloskey, Univ. of Illinois, Chicago
  • John McDermott, Univ. of South Carolina
  • Joseph McGarrity, Univ. of Central Arkansas
  • Roger Meiners, Univ. of Texas at Arlington
  • Allan Meltzer, Carnegie Mellon University
  • John Merrifield, Univ. of Texas at San Antonio
  • James Miller III, George Mason University
  • Jeffrey Miron, Harvard University
  • Thomas Moeller, Texas Christian University
  • John Moorhouse, Wake Forest University
  • Andrea Moro, Vanderbilt University
  • Andrew Morriss, Univ. of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign
  • Michael Munger, Duke University
  • Kevin Murphy, Univ. of Southern California
  • Richard Muth, Emory University
  • Charles Nelson, Univ. of Washington
  • Seth Norton, Wheaton College
  • Lee Ohanian, Univ. of California, Los Angeles
  • Lydia Ortega, San Jose State University
  • Evan Osborne, Wright State University
  • Randall Parker, East Carolina University
  • Donald Parsons, George Washington University
  • Sam Peltzman, Univ. of Chicago
  • Mark Perry, Univ. of Michigan, Flint
  • Christopher Phelan, Univ. of Minnesota
  • Gordon Phillips, Univ. of Maryland
  • Michael Pippenger, Univ. of Alaska, Fairbanks
  • Tomasz Piskorski, Columbia University
  • Brennan Platt, Brigham Young University
  • Joseph Pomykala, Towson University
  • William Poole, Univ. of Delaware
  • Barry Poulson, Univ. of Colorado at Boulder
  • Benjamin Powell, Suffolk University
  • Edward Prescott, Nobel laureate
  • Gary Quinlivan, Saint Vincent College
  • Reza Ramazani, Saint Michael's College
  • Adriano Rampini, Duke University
  • Eric Rasmusen, Indiana University
  • Mario Rizzo, New York University
  • Richard Roll, Univ. of California, Los Angeles
  • Robert Rossana, Wayne State University
  • James Roumasset, Univ. of Hawaii at Manoa
  • John Rowe, Univ. of South Florida
  • Charles Rowley, George Mason University
  • Juan Rubio-Ramirez, Duke University
  • Roy Ruffin, Univ. of Houston
  • Kevin Salyer, Univ. of California, Davis
  • Pavel Savor, Univ. of Pennsylvania
  • Ronald Schmidt, Univ. of Rochester
  • Carlos Seiglie, Rutgers University
  • William Shughart II, Univ. of Mississippi
  • Charles Skipton, Univ. of Tampa
  • James Smith, Western Carolina University
  • Vernon Smith, Nobel laureate
  • Lawrence Southwick, Jr., Univ. at Buffalo
  • Dean Stansel, Florida Gulf Coast University
  • Houston Stokes, Univ. of Illinois at Chicago
  • Brian Strow, Western Kentucky University
  • Shirley Svorny, California State
  • University, Northridge
  • John Tatom, Indiana State University
  • Wade Thomas, State University of New York at Oneonta
  • Henry Thompson, Auburn University
  • Alex Tokarev, The King's College
  • Edward Tower, Duke University
  • Leo Troy, Rutgers University
  • David Tuerck, Suffolk University
  • Charlotte Twight, Boise State University
  • Kamal Upadhyaya, Univ. of New Haven
  • Charles Upton, Kent State University
  • T. Norman Van Cott, Ball State University
  • Richard Vedder, Ohio University
  • Richard Wagner, George Mason University
  • Douglas M. Walker, College of Charleston
  • Douglas O. Walker, Regent University
  • Christopher Westley, Jacksonville State University
  • Lawrence White, Univ. of Missouri at St. Louis
  • Walter Williams, George Mason University
  • Doug Wills, Univ. of Washington Tacoma
  • Dennis Wilson, Western Kentucky University
  • Gary Wolfram, Hillsdale College
  • Huizhong Zhou, Western Michigan University

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Celebrity Press Conference


NYT Article
“The plan is not perfect,” Mr. Obama said in an eight-minute speech before taking reporters’ questions. “No plan is. I can’t tell you for sure that everything in this plan will work exactly as we hope, but I can tell you with complete confidence that a failure to act will only deepen this crisis.”


Wait a minute, I thought it was the Bush administration that used "fear mongering"? Wasn't Obama the one that pointed that out? That sounds like it starts with a "H" and ends with "ipocrisy" to me.

That is in fact what the Obama administration is doing though, using fear as leverage. "failure to act will only deepen this crisis", that is a political way of saying "don't mind all this pork attached to the bill that I promised wouldn't be there, this is an emergency and there is no time to think or question this stimulus plan, we must rush it through". As long as we are all living on the edge of our swivel chair in our cubicle wondering about our job security, there will be more attention paid to the unemployment rates than the actual bill itself.

Earlier Monday, the president took his message on the road, traveling to one of the most economically distressed corners of the nation, Elkhart, Ind. — a city whose hard luck story, including an unemployment rate of 15.3 percent, he invoked hours later at the White House as he sought to highlight the severity of problems facing ordinary Americans.

Well Elkhart, Indiana, has a large work force for Recreational Vehicle sales and no one is buying them in this economy. Maybe it is time to diversify the jobs down there in Elkhart, that is not me being mean or anything but when you throw all the chips on the table to one job sector that is in fact going along with the analogy of "taking a gamble".

Mr. Obama’s tone was for the most part serious and businesslike, and he was pointed in rebutting Republican criticisms of his economic plan, saying he was not willing to take advice from “the folks who presided over a doubling of the national debt.”


Well I will tell you what President Obama, I would rather follow an administration of people that put us into a trillion dollar deficit over 8 years than one that will do it in their first two months. By the way, people can comment about how Obama wouldn't be spending around a trillion dollars if it wasn't for the Bush administration but that is just using a scapegoat, with his plans for Universal Healthcare, green technologies, alternative fuels and everything else he has been talking about, we would be damn near just as close!

And while his answers were frequently lengthy, he steered clear of disclosing any details of the forthcoming bank bailout and housing plans or foreign policy initiatives.

That is because the administration's plans to nationalize the banks would make your head spin! The government wants to buy all the "preferred" stocks of the banks. What this means is that when it comes time for the dividends to be paid, the "preferred" stock holders (government) will get paid first. With the mess that the banks are in, there won't be enough money left to pay the regular stock holders, in essence leaving no real reason to even buy into those stocks, making the government the majority owner and socializing the system. Maxine Waters is currently drooling.

The past few weeks have been rocky ones for the fledgling Obama administration, as Republicans have successfully cast the stimulus plan as an exercise in pork-barrel spending. The news conference and presidential road trips were an effort by the White House to tap into Mr. Obama’s considerable rhetorical skills, in effect putting him back onto the campaign trail.


The campaigning is over Obama, didn't you just say "hoping is one thing and taking action is another"? Well stop with the rhetoric circuses and actually get to the action.

The reason there isn't republican support on this is because Obama WANTS the stimulus plan to include republican ideas so that when it fails, and it will, he can pin the blame on the republican ideas for being included and "compromising". It's one of the two liberal defense mechanisms you will run into, blaming the past administration or opposing party for the faults of the current democrat administration. Oh, the other defense mechanism? If you ever argue with a liberal you will find that they cut you off all the time to tell their side or just same random crap like "blah blah blah", reason being that they can't stand to listen to "reason". Stick with your emotions, I would rather use my brain.

“We can’t posture and bicker and resort to the same failed ideas that got us into this mess in the first place,” Mr. Obama told the enthusiastic crowd that packed into a high school gymnasium, where he took questions from the crowd that he said had not been screened. He added: “You didn’t send us to Washington because you were hoping for more of the same. You sent us there to change things.”

Point proven. Also, he once again brings up this whole "hope" idea with no details to back it up, still sounds like campaigning to me.

598,000 jobs lost last month alone — a figure, Mr. Obama said, that is ‘’nearly the equivalent of losing every job in the state of Maine.”

Listen, they just picked a big state with a relatively small population to make an exaggerated point here. I have been to Maine skiing, there are more moose than people (and I never even got to see a moose while I was there).

Let's take a look at the worst of this current crisis in unemployment. It started when? Maybe 3 or 4 months ago and has progressively gotten worse? I can't help but shake this feeling that something happened around that time those few months ago. I think it was like November 4th area or something. I don't know, maybe businesses are taking a look at the Obama tax policies on businesses and business owners and cutting back on their largest overhead expense, employees maybe???

“The party is now over,” Obama said.

You can say that again.

Friday, February 6, 2009

Ashley Judd's Sarah Palin PSA



Okay, so with the birth of my daughter this past weekend I had some time to spend at home and extra TV time while Alexandria was napping on my chest. I, a man, watched the View. Alright so I wanted to watch it, stop judging me damnit!

Anyway if you watched this clip you have a good sense of what I am talking about here. Credits go to Goldberg as much as Elizabeth here but this was a very "surface" scraping analysis of something much deeper here.

While Whoopi was right about the controlling of animal populations by the hunting of others, here talking about hunting wolves to secure the caribou population, she was absolutely wrong on Elizabeth's comparison of abortions.

Whoopi explained the mating side of animals vs the killing of wolves....what? No, Elizabeth was comparing the killing of a wolves life vs the killing of a baby's life in an abortion and it is absolutely true that both situations involve a conscience decision to do so whereas the mating habits of animals may not be so much a conscience decision. All in all, it does involve the RESPECT of life whether it be animal or human. This, however, is NOT an abortion discussion, I just wanted to clear that debate up on the View.

This PSA's analysis, as I said before, was a surface scratching of an issue. The deeper issue here is the political maneuvering of celebrities through causes. This just so happens to be the second time I am mentioning this today as well. I mentioned earlier how liberal senators use the Fairness Doctrine to silence talk radio completely and how environmentalists use oil drilling bans to save polar bears as a back door for their global warming agenda.

This PSA had a hell of a lot less to do with wolves than it did Sarah Palin. Why was she even mentioned in the video? When you ask yourself THAT question it becomes very clear. If it hasn't, let me ask you another question, would the PSA have been just as effective if they had used the images of random Wolf hunters holding up pelts without ever mentioning Palin? Absolutely, if not more so.

So what we have here is the advancing of liberal Hollywood to stifle the political competition in upcoming years. How do I come to this realization? Well where in the media is Sarah Palin anymore? There is nothing to fear or even hate of Palin at this stage, the elections are over. Unless of course you are in a spotlight liberal position in which you look to the future, a future that looks bright for a conservative star like Sarah Palin and the aspirations that she hopes to achieve.

This PSA was 99% political and 1% activist BS.

Gore, The Seasame Street Version Of William Ayers



Bill Ayers once told students to "bring the revolution home" and to "kill your parents", is now followed by Al Gore essentially saying "Your parents are morons, do not listen to them, listen to me about global warming".

I believe I would have walked into that school and knocked Gore's clock out, and promise to do so if he ever comes to my child's school with the same indoctrination.

This is going way to far. Spreading the fear of an Apocalypse is one thing when it comes to global warming but pitting children against their parents is another! This is like case #23 or something of my liberal indoctrination that I have been writing about. This is, like I said before, a man who preaches about global warming, attends a "green" ball after Obama's inauguration and then proceeds to leave in an SUV, probably to his gas wasting jet where he flew to one of his COUPLE houses that are also wasting MUCH more energy than an average person's.

This wacko needs to be taken care of.

Pelosi: Evil Comes At The Price Of Intelligence



500 million jobs will be lost. Is this not the week for short postings or what? I mean these people do the job for me.

For those of you that may have believed her "Fear mongering", as she would have undoubtedly said about Bush in the same circumstances, or you are just plain unaware, the population of the United States of America is only a little over 300 million.

Apparently we are due to have negative 200 million jobs soon, let that bend your mind!

Political Radio "Accountability"



I thought my brakes were stuck there for a minute, that whining noise was really getting to me! Did you just listen to what that woman said? This is straight up socialism policies people and we need to start waking up. "Saying things to get people angry and things that are just plain not true"? Excuse me senator but these are things that the "liberal leaning" media WILL NOT point out!

If you do not understand the "Fairness Doctrine" then you have some learning to do. Basically radio stations would be REQUIRED, read: communism, to air opposing views and equal time for liberal air time vs. conservative air time. We are talking about PRIVATE entities that are controlled by the government. We are talking about the end of political radio, and here is why. Talk radio attracts a certain type of audience, whether that be liberal or conservative, and the only way these networks stay afloat is through advertising. Knowing then that listeners will "tune out" when the opposing view comes on, there is no reason to advertise on that station because it would be a waste of time with diminishing listeners!

This is basically another liberal policy that is deceiving in the fact that instead of outright trying to do away with talk radio, they will take back door measures by bringing up some BS in order to "lead" to the shutting down of something that is hurtful to their image. This is just like the oil drilling ban to save polar bears when really it was about global warming they could not prove!

If this happens I want to see hard rock songs for every soft rock song, punk songs for every pop song on stations. I want 3 more conservative women on the view. I want a conservative anchor person for every liberal bastard you see on MSNBC, NBC, CBS, ABC, and I would then GLADLY take a liberal conservative host for every FOXNews anchor.

The reason these liberal senators, like Debbie Stabenow (D-MI), are in favor of the "Fairness Doctrine" is because they are scarred that their short comings are aired for an audience well in the hundreds of millions to hear. The funny part is that liberal radio has proven to be a failure over and over and over again.

Hence the closing of the "One's" Obama 1260.

Let your voice be heard that enough is enough with these mandated ways of thinking, that you are your own person and you have every right to listen to and think however the hell you want. That education of the mind is through the interests of topics brought to you by different sides and then researched and formulated into an opinion. Do so by doing the following:

Give Debbie a call at her Washington Office: (202) 224-4822, tell her how you really feel.

Obama Paints Pictures With Words, Pictures Of Supporters Actions Speak Louder


Ah yes, the "Era of responsibility". There is not much to add to this picture really because it says a lot without even containing the caption.

The fact that there were a lot of environmentalists and members of Gen Y that have taken up Al Gore's Inconvenient Lie, I meant Truth, we still end up with this mess.

Then again, with the way our politicians are lately, it might just be the products of their garbage and wasteful spending that fed into this.