Worst Press Secretary EVER vs. The UK Media

According to Politico:

Robert Gibbs swatted down reports in British newspapers that suppressed photos of prisoner abuse included graphic ... images of torture and rape — and took a hard shot at the overseas media.

It would be obvious of me to point out how immature and childish Gibbs is and has been since Obama's run for the presidency, but, would it surprise you to know that people and media outside of the United States feel the same way?

Maybe the fact that Americans turn a blind eye to politics until the next election shows up four years later but those that get the President's message through press conferences have to deal with the "voice" or "mouth" of the President through the press secretary, in this case, Robert "um" Gibbs.

According to this UK Telegraph article:

Gibbs' juvenile comments followed an article in The Daily Telegraph relating to the President's decision not to release new photos reportedly showing appalling prisoner abuse at Abu Ghraib by a tiny minority of military personnel. The straightforward news piece, hotly disputed by the White House, is based upon an interview with Major General Antonio Taguba, who oversaw the inquiry into the Abu Ghraib abuse scandal.

Which is the video posted above.

I find it hilariously ironic that Gibbs is referring to the UK media being biased and ignorant to things when the current administration so obviously has the American mainstream media in it's pockets.

I'll be honest, I have liberal bloggers and friends that consistently lead me to Telegraph or Guardian articles all the time because the UK has an outside view of the States. Is it that the Obama-mania comatose sugary fest hasn't taken over the people of the UK that the media salivates and gets "tingles" and "thrills" up their legs that pisses this administration off??

This kind of attack would normally be made against the likes of the North Korean or Iranian state media, but in the current climate of "engagement" with America's enemies the White House is far more likely to attack its own allies. Gibbs' remarks have echoes of a senior State Department official's anti-British statements to The Sunday Telegraph after the appalling handling of the Prime Minister's visit in March.

Can you imagine Gibbs making these remarks about The New York Times or The Washington Post, or NBC, ABC or CBS? This would never happen. The British press, especially the Telegraph, has been singled out because they frequently publish articles critical of the Obama administration and are not afraid to take on the status quo in Washington. Increasingly, millions of Americans are turning to online UK news websites for cutting edge reports on American politics and U.S. foreign policy that the mainstream media refuses to cover in the States, especially if it is unflattering to the Obama White House.

Robert Gibbs' completely unwarranted rant against the British press is an absolute disgrace, and the President should disown his views. An unreserved apology by Gibbs is also in order.

For all its talk of "raising America's standing" in the world after the Bush years, the Obama administration is doing a spectacularly bad job of reaching out to its allies. Unfortunately this is the new face of America's public diplomacy, which will only serve to alienate public opinion across the Atlantic. Congratulations Gibbs - you've just made an enemy out of the entire British media, quite an achievement for the man in charge of selling the President's message.

What else is there to say? Obviously the UK people are not as blind as the half of this country that has decided to blindfold themselves until 2012.

Sotomayor: Proof To Me That The Left Is The Party Of Racists

(You win Obama, can't disagree here! (cause I would be a racist-sexist Conservative if I did))

Sotomayor.

Well played Obama, well played.

Here is what I love about all this politics stuff. I never got into politics or classified myself until I was about 21 years old. The day I decided I was a Conservative I had to wrestle with the fact that I was also a racist. I never knew before that that I was BUT that is what the Democrat party tells me about myself. This judicial choice is ALL ABOUT "racism", make no mistake about that.

The Liberal Left has consistently pounded into the public mind that the Right is racist, and it played right into Obama's judicial choice of Sotomayor. I can see the question going through Obama's head "How do I get a radical judge that agrees with my radical ideas, that the Republicans can not shoot down?". Pick a Hispanic woman!

Not connecting the dots here? I'll feed you baby birds...

You see, she is a woman and a minority and if ANY Republicans have a problem with her, they are immediately labeled "sexists" or "racists". We couldn't even disagree and oppose Obama without being called a "racist", but that was always the plan! As long as you make people focus on the surface issues, they will rarely look at the actual substance of the person or issue.

The real question here goes beyond Sotomayor as a choice, it is, which party REALLY IS the party of racists?

The Democrats have been doing a great job of portraying the Republicans as racists, yet they had worse things to say about Clarence Thomas as a choice back when he was picked than what we are saying about Sotomayor, yet it is okay to say it as long as you are "on this side of the line".

To me, I would have to say that the Left is the party of racists, the way they sway the minority vote with promises and this politically charged choice for judge only proves that the Left sees minorities (and apparently women) as pawn pieces in their political chess game. That may also feed into all of this though, usually the main criticism of Republicans isn't that they are voting AGAINST minorities, just not for anything for them. So maybe, as long as they feel like they are part of the game, even as those pawn pieces, they feel like a party keeps them involved.

The entitlement push is only getting worse as well. The Left is trying to intensify the Welfare state and provide more and more bailouts of every kind to people. Obama himself just recently said "we are already broke", yet he continues to spend BILLIONS of dollars. Why? That is actually the easiest question in all of this, to break the system and destroy America as we know it.

Sounds harsh and completely "out there" but you are reading it wrong. I am not talking about literal destruction, I am talking about increasing entitlement programs until they are unsustainable and they break the system. Then, the Left, especially Obama, will blame it on the "Capitalism" model and say that it was bound to happen. Then he will suggest a fancy new term that is a round-about way of saying that "socialism" will work.

So once again, while it looks like he is helping out minorities with these entitlement programs, he is actually focused on crashing the system and cares very little of the pawns in the way.

But back to Sotomayor and what is going on with her. Not only was it a racist pick but she is a racist herself:

"First, as Professor Martha Minnow has noted, there can never be a universal definition of wise," Sotomayor said. "Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

It doesn't sound too harsh unless you compare that with a "white" candidate. Let's just take those exact words and reverse them to instead say:

"Second, I would hope that a wise white man with the richness of his experiences would more often then not reach a better conclusion than a Latina woman who hasn't lived that life"

Wow...that is just changing the racial terms around and nothing else! If you think that that is not racist, you are a hypocrite.

We will just have to sit back and see how this all plays out I guess.

Adam Lambert, Hit The Road While You Hit That SAME High Note Again

(Here's singing to you Perez!)

Oh Adam Lambert, the little I saw of you this season (since I don't bother to watch cause Lost or Heroes was usually on) turned me into a fan...of the other guy.

I never found myself in a situation dealing with American Idol where I actually rooted AGAINST someone. Maybe it was his crooner night, the way he butchered a classic song that the likes of Sinatra and Buble can only hope that these contestants get "semi-good".

Then again, maybe it is the fact that instead of adapting his talent to the style of the genre of the night, he adapted the style of the song to his "emo-ish" style of singing....and what the hell was with hitting that SAME LOOOOOONG note every-single-time he did a song! One word, "repetitive"!

So imagine my happiness when I heard that Chris Allen won, oh the joy.

But then...the horror, a scandal!?

With only the sparse information provided (and absolutely no proof to back up their claims, from say, an investigation?) fans of Lambert and the media jumped on the story of some AT&T spokespeople handing out demo phones at two parties in.....Alabama (where the population MUST be BOOMING) to let them send in their text votes.

Now, first of all, it is Alabama. Like I said, the population isn't exactly turning out in NYC fashion I would assume. Number two, I didn't hear anything about AT&T putting a gun to these people's heads to vote for Chris.

Just because I sometimes have these stupid urges that I know I should ignore, I went to Twitter and looked up a few people, eventually it lead me to my Favorite, Perez Hilton. He would be one of those people who, without proof, proclaimed that Adam Lambert was robbed of his victory.....hmm, wonder why?

Either way, Chris won.

Sounds good to me!

Huffington Post & Bonnie Fuller: We Attack Teen Mothers (As Long As It is In Our Political Favor)

(The Huffington Post was furious that Palin graced the People Magazine cover instead of Obama....AGAIN this month)

Showing once again that the Huffington Post has no class and continues to be a sham of a news source, the site has released a story on teen mother Bristol Palin.

In it's continuous political fight against the right wing family to help the current residing political party hold its roots firm, the news source has resorted to political commentary, or more pointedly, opinion, of a "Celebrity blogger", Bonnie Fuller, to do "thy bidding" in attacking the Alaska political family.

With such great quotes (obviously backed by unbiased-ness and resources) and gems such as:

"...might as well be titled, "I'm 18, a mom and HOT...and you can be too!" There's not one photo of an exhausted, haggard, harried, unkempt-looking Bristol, reeling under the enormous responsibilities of raising an infant, working part-time — which she is — and hoping to somehow continue her studies. Instead, Bristol appears tanned, rested and already fitting back into her skintight jeans."

"... there's nothing in the People magazine spread to visually suggest that life isn't one big happy bed of roses in the Palin household, where Bristol and Tripp still reside. There's not even a dish out of place, let alone a pile of laundry or an unmade bed."

"So now, the Palins are fabulously dressing up their daughter's situation. After all, the Gov. has her eye on a future White House run."

"" I don't have that kind of time. And the dress is, like, $400, and the shoes, hair, makeup, it's way too expensive."

Wow. Her mom enjoyed a free $150,000 wardrobe and $50,000 worth of makeup during the presidential campaign, and she wouldn't babysit and fork over the money to get her daughter a dress for a once in a lifetime prom."

That last comment, cleared by recent investigation that said the GOP had the right to do that, was a shot at the Palins to directly emotionally hit those that are oblivious to political news, more accurately, those that are politically blind and vote based upon the stupidity of the types of writers like this one.

I have to say, I know that Hayden Panettiere has been involved in liberal type charities and events, but with her involvement in the same speaking engagements as Bristol, I hope she has the right mind to keep out of the political mud slinging and just keep her thoughts to herself....she is such a hottie...Amen Heroes...Hayden, don't ruin your image by getting involved!

"As a mom of two teen girls, I can hardly believe the fairytale crock the Palins have cooked up about unwed teen motherhood, with the help of People mag."

As a mother of two teen girls, you should be ashamed at yourself for taking personal shots at a teenager and criticizing her for what she is doing to feed into the political hack scene. Yes, you are a mother, don't compare your situation to hers, everyone is different and in different situations. Bristol happens to have a family support system that should be celebrated, instead you take the low road and take gut-shots at a teenager...how high and mighty of you!

You are an embarassment to mothers, not Bristol...if you would give your children half the attention you have given Bristol in this piece, they may turn out to realize you were around.

The Disney Terminator: President Obama!

("It's a small world after all, it's a small world after all!")

Get ready America..RobObama is on his way! Yipee!

According to the New York Times, a robotic president Obama is poised to take over the country!

It seems the White House has found it's answer to all of the "Obama and his teleprompter" comments. From now on, RobObama will be addressing the nation in speeches, eliminating the use of teleprompter and giving the president a sound mind of security while sitting in the Oval office delivering his speeches directly via Skype to the new robot.

From now on, if you are skeptical on if it is the "real" Obama standing before you for your dinner speech, take a breath, relax and look around for a teleprompter. If you see one, it is the "real" Obama, if there isn't one...sorry the White House has dupped ya!

This is just a fun little post about the new animatronic replica of Obama that will be making it's appearance at Disney World this July 4th. In actuality, I applaud Disney on trying to bring a historical perspective on the presidents of America to life. It is actually really neat.

But one does have to wonder if this robotic president is only the beginning of the Skynet projects that eventually demolished the world in the Terminator series...we can only wait and see....

A FANTASTIC Read: President Palin's First 100 Days

(I am repainting my Air Force One pink and using it for my Mary Kay runs)

I wish I had written this myself, it is a fantastic article written about a "What if" circumstance...what if Sarah Palin were President and did ALL the same things that Obama has done? Would the Press treat her the same? Would the Left population treat her the same as Obama?

Check out the article here, so that the author can receive his rightly earned credit, or read on:

President Palin’s First 100 Days
By Victor Davis Hanson

WASHINGTON (AP) — The first 100 days of the Palin presidency, according to a consensus of media commentators, have proven a near disaster. Perhaps it was Palin’s scant two years’ experience in a major government position that has eroded her gravitas, or maybe it was her flirty reliance on looks and informal chit-chat. In any case, the press has had a field day, and it is hard to see how President Palin can ever recover from the Quayle/potatoe syndrome. Here is a roundup of this week’s pundit mockery.

LET THEM EAT MOOSE
“Ted Stevens may have gotten off,” wrote Bob Herbert in the New York Times, “but he taught our Sarah something first — like using $100-a-pound beef for her state dinners. And what’s this $50 mil for her inauguration gala? Since when do you fly in your favorite pizza-maker from across the country on our dime? Or send the presidential 747 for a spin over the Big Apple for a third-of-a-million-dollar joyride? Does Palin think she’s still in Alaska and has to have everything flown in from the South 48 by jumbo jet?”

WASILLA CHIC
Also in the Times, Gail Collins weighed in on the already-tired yokelism of the new commander in chief. “What we’re getting is Wasilla chic. That’s what we’re getting. She arrives in the Oval Office, and first thing sends back Blair’s gift of the Churchill bust as if it’s a once-worn Penney’s outfit. Then she gives the Brits some unwatchable DVDs as a booby prize — as if she idled the old Yukon and ran into Target’s sale aisle. Did Sarah send Bristol into Wal-Mart back in Anchorage for that ‘engraved’ iPod for the queen? And what’s this don’t-bow-to-the-queen stuff, but curtsy for a Saudi sheik? Maybe that explains why she brags to Stephanopoulos about her ‘Muslim faith.’ So far, the best things going for her are Todd’s biceps.”

IT'S THE MATH, STUPID!
“Well,” lectured Paul Krugman, again in the Times, “we were worried that they didn’t teach math at Idaho U., and now we know for sure they don’t. Is it $1.6 trillion, $1.7 trillion, or $2 trillion in red ink this year? Are we supposed to be impressed that she offers ‘fiscal sobriety’ by cutting 0.003 percent of the budget? She gives out money to those who don’t pay taxes and calls it a tax cut. And now Queen Sarah tells us that in four years she’ll ‘halve’ the deficit, as if she hasn’t borrowed another $5 trillion in the meantime. Does she think we’re morons? How many ‘Drill, baby, drill!’ oil wells can she tap into up there in Alaska to pay for the extra $11 trillion in debt she’s saddling us with?”

WORSE THAN 'NUCULAR'
ABC’s Katie Couric summed up the general disappointment with the president’s communication skills. “I tried to warn the American people in that interview a few years back what they would get if they voted for her. Let’s face it: She’s a walking embarrassment. I mean just count ’em up: The mayor of Wasilla thinks Austrians speak some lingo called ‘Austrian.’ Then she tries her hand at Spanish and comes up with some concoction, ‘Cinco de Cuatro.’ Next thing she’ll walk into the window of the Oval Office and expect it to open — oops, she’s already done that. No wonder that when her Teleprompter stalls, she shuts her mouth until it catches up. I’m surprised she managed to get sworn in. And did she think that tasteless ‘Special Olympics’ slur was funny? Or making fun of octogenarian Nancy Reagan’s séances? No wonder Wanda Sykes feels at home.”

ANCHORAGE STYLE
A “dragon lady in heels” is what President Palin is, according to the NYT’s Frank Rich. “Don’t fall for this pageant nice-girl stuff. Our former beauty queen is a ward hack. Look at her nominations. Can’t Palin find anyone who has paid his taxes — or do they simply ignore that stuff in no-tax Alaska? Does ‘No more lobbyists’ mean ‘More lobbyists than ever’? Her chief performance overseer doesn’t perform too well herself — and, like Daschle, Geithner, and the rest, skips out on her taxes. When Palin brags about fiscal sobriety, it really means record deficits. In Sarahland, not wanting to take over banks and car companies translates into, ‘She already has.’ Highest ethical standards equates to ‘There are none.’ Calling herself the VA president means she’s just told vets to use their own health insurance.”

GUTTER TRASH
“Pretty crude, pretty petty,” Sally Quinn sighed in the Washington Post. “No manners at all. Does our new mom in chief think it’s neat to laugh when her court jester at the correspondents’ dinner calls Michael Moore a traitor and a terrorist — and hopes he dies of kidney failure? Is that funny? Ask those on dialysis. Is that what Alaskan hockey moms do — scream out at every talk-show host who hurts their itty-bitty feelings? Limbaugh, Hannity — who will it will be next? Poor old Jim Cramer?”

NEOCON CON
“She’s a Bush clone,” the Times’s Maureen Dowd chimed in. “Bush is out, Palin is in — but we keep getting renditions, military tribunals, wiretaps, e-mail intercepts, Predator drone executions over Pakistan, the same in Iraq, and even more of the same in Afghanistan — all retrofitted with new ‘hope and change’ banalities. I mean, who’s putting Mommy Dearest up to this — Wolfie, Perlie, Cheney?”

TINGLE FOR HUGO?
“There is no foreign policy,” Chris Matthews said on Hardball, his voice dripping with scorn. “She just tours the world and nods, as if her good looks and serial apologies are going to win us a collective tingle abroad. I don’t think Hugo Chávez and Mahmoud Ahmadinejad care much that she’s got great legs and a nice wink. How many times can Ms. Vapid say, ‘We’re sorry’ and ‘Hit that old reset button’ and expect thugs to make nice?”

RACE, ALL THE TIME
Eugene Robinson worried in the Washington Post about Palin’s emphasis on race. “Look, she gets 95 percent of the working-class white vote. She promises next month to talk to the ‘Christian world’ from Estonia, of all places. Hello? She goes to the Summit of the Americas and immediately puts race on the table — as if we are supposed to separate those with European heritage from those without. Then she tells al Arabiyya that she hopes to heal the rift with Europe ‘because of my own shared European heritage that seems to resonate in ways I hadn’t imagined throughout the EU.’ I guess we’re learning that those ‘gaffes’ last year on the campaign trail, like her ‘typical black person’ remark and Todd’s ‘I am finally proud of my country again’ nonsense were not gaffes at all.”

WHERE IS THE PRESS?
Howard Kurtz summed up the press cynicism the best in his Washington Post column. “How long does she think she can keep picking on her right-wing plants in the audience for these softball Q-and-A sessions? I mean, there are only so many pukey ‘What has surprised you the most about this office? What has enchanted you the most about serving in this office?’ questions you can lob.”

Glenn Beck On The View

It is actually embarrassing how Whoopie and Barbara acted today on the View.

Take a look at the videos, analyze what was REALLY said and then see what the women said.

Glenn's "big" mistake was that Barbara didn't come over to him to talk, he went over to her...Whoa, Liar Liar pants on fire Glenn! How dare you fabricate such a fib!?

Whoopie on the other hand had more of a disagreement over the seating arrangements, saying that the women didn't reserve the seats and then not giving Glenn a chance to explain what he said. What he said was that the seats were reserved, he didn't place that blame on them! They cut out the whole part of his radio show where he said he got on the train and tried to sit down and a woman refused to let him sit down, saying those seats were "reserved". Whether Whoopie and Walters reserved them or not does not make a difference, they were reserved none the less.

A clear argument for what really happened could have taken place if only Whoopie and crew had shown the same respect for Beck as they demand for themselves when explaining things, "don't interrupt me until I finish". They actually gave me my main argument for "10 things to look out for when arguing a liberal" #1. They will cut you off but demand that you don't do the same to them.

Because of the bickering from these women, nothing was accomplished with Beck on the show, instead they wanted to make a mockery of him. As far as Barbara "making fun" of his crying, I can only assume Beck's assumption is right after her position from the get-go.

Funny thing is, Beck expected this from the moment he was booked for the show and has been talking about it for weeks.

Obama and the Car Industry, If You Aren't Scared, You Aren't Paying Attention

(2011 Camero, I can't wait for this model!)

I think it is only right to start off this post by giving at least some credit to Obama. I mean, I have to agree on some points lately with emissions and everything. Here is what I agree with:

1. We should try to reduce emissions
2. We should have more fuel efficient cars
3. There should be a nationwide standard on emissions (instead of state by state)

Those are 3 things that I agree with him on! I even surprise myself sometimes.

Why should we reduce emissions? Well, I for one have not bought into the whole "emissions are causing an apocalyptic meltdown of the Earth" theory BUT those emissions sure as hell aren't healthy for anyone to breath in directly. Sure, every little bit helps and while I don't believe that we can stop this "Global Warming", it doesn't mean that I am saying to go out and trash the Earth.

Why should we have fuel efficient cars? Well it only makes sense, it is better for the emissions portion of my argument and easier on your wallet. Where I don't agree with this is on the size of the vehicles out there right now. That smart car is a coffin on wheels! Matter of fact, I would be more comfortable in a coffin, that is downright a death trap. Give me a fuel efficient SUV that not only gets me great mileage but also gives me the capacity to haul more people AND only make one trip to the grocery store instead of 12!

The nationwide standard makes the most sense. One thing that has been tough for the auto industry is making cars that are efficient enough to meet ALL the requirements out there by states. The easiest way was to take the most strict state and work on that model, now it is known what they must do and it is the same across the board.

I recently heard Rush Limbaugh say that we are going to be forced to drive these little "putt putt" cars and yet we will be surrounded by semi trucks, that could literally crush us EASILY on the road, and look through our sunroofs (because us tall people can't fit in a smart car without one) at 747s flying overhead. Basically saying that Obama would make a mockery of us by forcing us to drive fuel efficient death traps while watching inefficient vehicles all around us, oh yea, and probably see the President himself in his usual SUV motorcade that is NOT fuel efficient.

I disagree with Limbaugh, I think we are much worse off than that. I think Obama is going to make getting fuel a misery, driving prices up and therefore airline prices sky high (no pun intended) leading to an exclusive only air club. I see these CSX commercials on TV about how congested traffic and pollution can be cleared by moving cargo from trucks to trains. I think Obama will see this as an opportunity and try to follow the CSX model, eliminating 95% of the jobs of truckers out there. Just more jobs lost to a liberal administration, go figure.

The car industry fiasco right now does have me a little worried though. I keep hearing how this country isn't heading toward socialism. President Obama even said himself that he DOESN'T want a bigger government....

Yet, he fires the main guy of GM and then tells Chrysler to halve their marketing budget. That IS BIG government. The President FIRES a private sector employee? The President CUTS the marketing budget of a private sector company? People aren't even taking notice, even worse, those that are (on the left) even praise this mentality!

It gets worse..

Now 789 of 3200 Chrysler dealerships MUST close down, whether they were profitable or not. These are family owned businesses that the government is mandating be closed down. Most of these dealerships buy their lot vehicles on loans BUT the government doesn't have the kind of money to help out those individuals out and buy back those cars. What is left? Well they can sell those cars to the remaining dealerships left BUT with car sales down over 40% right now, no one is going to want to buy those cars off of them. What does that leave the family owned dealerships with? Well they are going to take a personal hit NOT a business hit.

Meanwhile, the car czar, Steve Rattner, is moving forward with a 15,500 square foot SUMMER home in Martha's Vineyard. Proving once again that BIG government can do what it wants while shafting the citizens.

You have to laugh to keep from crying.

Scientists Find THE Missing Link. I Celebrate With A Banana

(47 million year old spine, look at that hunch, you need an adjustment buddy)

I personally find this post so ridiculous, that I am going to keep it short and simple. Really the only reason I wanted to point it out was to throw another wrench into Global Warming...not a big one, but a little "so why..?" question.

Anyway, in this article, it claims that scientists have unveiled a 47 million year old fossil of a lemur-monkey, follow me here, that is the missing link, stay with me, for Darwin's theory of evolution. Wow.

Now, maybe it is just me, but doesn't this connect prehistoric monkeys with modern monkeys more than it does SOMEHOW fitting in between primates and humans??

Here is the thing, in order to really prove Darwin's theory, you would have to find thousands, if not millions, of fossils of early primates and show the differences over the millions of years as they evolved. By saying:

"Up until now, the most famous fossil primate in the world has been Lucy, a 3.18-million-year-old hominid found in Ethiopia in 1974."

Oh, let's see, 47 million years old and 3.18 million years old. Okay, give me time to do the math here. By my estimations, you are looking at a 43.82 MILLION year gap, where is all the evidence in between??!

They are asking you to take a pretty big leap of faith in judgment there, especially considering that the 3.18 million year old ancestor's skeleton was only 40% complete.

On to my global warming question, something came to mind as I read the following:

"Through radiometric dating of Messel's volcanic rocks, they discovered Ida lived 47 million years ago in the Eocene period.

This was when tropical forests stretched right to the poles, and South America was still drifting and had yet to make contact with North America."

Whoa, stop the presses! Are you telling me that "tropics" spread to the poles, the Earth was hot, there were no ice shelves or icebergs and this was not the fault of "Global Warming"! I mean surely you could at least blame it on the gas emissions of the animals themselves right?

Those that will believe, will believe and argue until they are blue in the face I guess.

Robert Gibbs, My Mom Is Calling and I Would Rather Listen to Her Banter

That video is so funny.

Let me just say this, can you see the disrespect the press has for this guy? I almost, "almost", feel sorry for him. It really shows though how much they dislike him and don't respect what he has to say.

Let me correct myself, what he DOESN'T say, because he never answers any questions and 99.9% of the time dodges around like a clown.

The one guy actually answered the phone, talked, and left the room! Haha.

Robert Gibbs is the worst Press Secretary EVER.

Shanna Moakler, Didn't Know You, Never Care Too

(The pain she is feeling here is palpable)

Fox News:

"I cannot with a clear conscious move forward supporting and promoting the Miss Universe Organization when I no longer believe in it, or the contracts I signed committing myself as a youth," she said. "I want to be a role model for young [women] with high hopes of pageantry, but now feel it more important to be a role model for my children. I am sorry and hope I have not let any young supporters down but wish them the best of luck in fulfilling their dreams."

Wait, let me get this straight, I always saw the Miss USA and Miss Universe pageants as just beauty contests and that was wrong. I listen and hear that we want beautiful women that can be looked to as role models that can be active in their community and eloquently speak about their positions.

It seems to me that this Shanna Moakler, instead of having a real problem with the operation of the pageant itself, resigned over her own political agenda that got rejected in the end.

Had that question never been asked, those pictures would probably have never surfaced and this Shanna wouldn't have a problem. Instead a young woman was basically told that she should have lied and given a politically correct statement in order to cover her own behind and give a broad appeal. Well when it comes to religious issues, if you deny your faith and God's ways, that puts you in a really bad place spiritually and emotionally. Frankly, I am sick of people telling her she was wrong to do and say what she did, mind your own business and live your own life. Christianity and morals and values are under heavy attack in this country and we are on our way to the secular mess that Europe has.

So, Shanna, you resign? Good, you win some you lose some. What is really getting to you here is that with all the Liberal wins lately in every sector of life, you lost a conservative battle and you are a sore loser about it. You want to be a role model to your own children? Then you just taught them to quit when times get rough, congratulations. Play the victim...

What else is new.

Taxing You For Treating Yourself How You Want

(Smoke em while you can!)

POLITICO:

"If you make big bucks — or enjoy alcohol, cigarettes and Coke — the government might hit you up to pay for fixing the nation’s health care system.

On Tuesday, the Senate Finance Committee peeked into vending machines and liquor stores, company payrolls and health savings accounts, looking for a mix of tax increases and spending cuts as a way to pay for a health overhaul — which could cost more than $1.5 trillion over 10 years."

Do you remember when Obama said "If you make under $125,000 a year, you will not see any raise in your taxes". I don't know how many times I have to bring this up with people. A lot of people will jump to his defense and say that he meant Federal and Income taxes. Well, that is not what he said, say what you mean and mean what you say.

So what are we taxing now? Cigarettes have already seen an increase in tax that was an increase more than all the previous increases combined....in one shot. Now they are considering taxing alcohol.

"But soda and sugary drinks found a friend Tuesday in Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa), the ranking member on the Finance Committee.

He categorically rejected the idea during a conference call with reporters.

“No,” he said swiftly, when asked if there was any chance of taxing it. “I think, quite frankly, the only reason it’s being brought up is to get it shot down early so it doesn’t become part of the debate. I don’t think it’s going to have any legs at all.”

Just the fact that it was mentioned is disheartening though because you know the option, though brushed aside, is still on the table.

Am I being ridiculous with these "small" taxes? Let's take a look at a little bit more then:

"People who like the tax-free status of their company health benefits could be asked to ante up. Money in the pot: more than $700 billion over 10 years.

Treasure the tax benefits from your health savings account? Some experts say the accounts encourage “excess consumption” of health services — and committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) agreed they’re worth a look. Money in the pot: $60 billion over 10 years."

Ah, we are now going to start taxing heath savings accounts and benefits too. Unbelievable.

Tax. Tax. Tax.

Of course, the remedy will be giving you "free", cause we all know it's free, health care in the near future.

European culture of waiting 6 months for treatment, here we come.

Good Job Obama

According to this NYT article:

"President Obama said Wednesday that he would fight to prevent the release of photographs documenting abuse of prisoners in Iraq and Afghanistan by United States military personnel, reversing his position on the issue after commanders warned that the images could set off a deadly backlash against American troops."

Praise has to be given to the President for this decision. Obama is making the right decision in not releasing these pictures that could potentially put our troops and country in harms way.

The ACLU, an organization that seems hell-bent on destroying America, had this to say:

"Anthony D. Romero, executive director of the A.C.L.U., said the decision to fight the release of the photos was a mistake. He said officials had described them as “worse than Abu Ghraib” and said their volume, more than 2,000 images, showed that “it is no longer tenable to blame abuse on a few bad apples. These were policies set at the highest level.”

Then you can mix that with a little:

"Several left-leaning groups, which had been fierce critics of the Bush administration, said they were stunned by the decision. Human Rights Watch called it a blow to transparency and accountability. And Mr. Romero, the executive director of the A.C.L.U., suggested that the Obama administration was “covering up not only for the Bush White House, but for itself.”

Asked whether release of the photos might not help Al Qaeda or provoke violence in the Muslim world, Mr. Romero said, “The greatest recruitment tool for Al Qaeda and violent jihadis has been the use of torture.”

Covering for the Bush administration? Obama? Really? Of all people, Obama blames everything on Bush. If it were an actual good decision, Obama would jump at the chance, that should tell you something.

I love the "The greatest recruitment tool for Al Qaueda and violent Hihadis has been the use of torture", right. So why not put pictures to the words to throw gas on the fire?! Are these people not only out of their minds but completely stupid? Yes, that was rhetorical.

Anyway, President Obama, you made the right decision and today I commend you for that.

Miss California Keeps Her Crown, Perez Hilton Resorts To Frown

"Carrie will remain Miss California," Donald Trump said at a press conference Tuesday.

Haha, chew on that for a while you with hunt liberals! Especially you Perez Hilton.

Sure, it is a short post but this is all about VICTORY!

Generation O No You Didn't!

(Bow to my incredibly young and wise intellect and Obama pin)

"Chris, I have been stalking around your site for some time now and even have had a link on my site for awhile. You are like Big Foot. A Gen Y conservative was a rumor that I didn't know actually existed."- Comment by Drew, yesterday on my post about Wanda Sykes

That quote has to do with today's post on the Liberal Youth growing in America.

According to Newsweek's Generation O article:

"Young people ages 18 to 29 rallied around a 47-year-old first-term Senator last fall not only because of his ideas, but also for the generational change he ushered in. Their age cohort is often referred to as the "millennials," but a more apt term might be "Generation O"—short for Obama."

It was bound to happen, it has been talked about and now it is coming. Let's hope this generational title doesn't catch on. Schools, roads, buildings and bridges being named after Obama prior to him even getting elected into office was enough, but now this?

When you think about it, it is the only generational name that, if it caught on and was used as the secured name, would essentially be a slap in the face to a portion of the population. This has not been done before with any generation:

1. Great Generation- Pretty inclusive and a feel good term
2. Baby Boomers- Was in correlation with a large population boom at the time, also very inclusive
3. Generation X- Generic in nature, doesn't single anyone out
4. Generation Y- Same as X, let's keep it that way!

5. Generation (O)bama- What about those of us who didn't vote for him or his policies? How about those of us who think he is a horrible influence on our society?

Bad Idea.

"A new study from the Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) at Tufts University shows that today's youth vote in larger numbers than previous generations, and a 2008 study from the Center for American Progress adds that increasing numbers of young voters and activists support traditionally liberal causes. But there's no easy way to see what those figures mean in real life. During the campaign, Obama assembled a racially and ideologically diverse coalition with his message of hope and change; as the reality of life under a new administration settles in, some of those supporters might become disillusioned. As the nation moves further into the Obama presidency, will politically engaged young people continue to support the president and his agenda, or will they gradually drift away?"

This study that was done, was cut short by about 4 elections. Are you seriously going to do a study on ONE election and the results and apply it to a generations voting patterns without any follow up voting record!?

My say on this is that this was a historic election because there were a lot of people that wanted to vote a black man into office to make history. That is not a racist statement, as a matter of fact the idea itself at face value is very intriguing and I would want to see the same thing, but a black man or woman with conservative values, FOR ME, would have been better.

Why is this relevant, well for one, the young generation came out in droves to make it happen. History has been made, the next time he runs, it won't be history. As a matter of fact, the next race should be a woman on either side because that will get voters out to make history again. Then in 2016 we can run a dog or a horse or something to keep the trend going. It is absolutely ridiculous to base a study off of any one election, especially this one. That last part of that statement "will engaged young people continue to support the president and his agenda, or will they gradually drift away?" Well let me tell you something, it seems to me that a large voting block for the democratic party are those that don't follow politics on a day to day basis. Ignorance is bliss, especially for the Democratic party that can just throw out there random false facts about Republicans being racist, sexist and a homophobic party to a large portion of the population that wouldn't know any better.

Congrats, you cater to the oblivious or just plain dumb? Good for you.

Then you have this Los Angeles Times article:

"And a recent Daily Kos tracking poll should send shudders down the spine of any Republican who understands how powerful a voting bloc this generation could become over the next decade."

First of all, you are citing the Daily Kos, a LIBERAL BLOGGING site? Well of course their statistics are going to show grim details for the republican party. Are you kidding me?

"Millennials also are experiencing higher levels of unemployment than any other generation. They expect the federal government to take an active role in fixing that problem and support redistributing income if necessary."

And people are saying that republicans are falsely shouting about socialism!? They are out-right saying that they want to government to REDISTRIBUTE THE WEALTH. Because they can't find a job? Maybe they need to start taking a closer look at the party that is representing them and see why it is that they can't find a job. With all of the loosening of laws on immigration, or lack of enforcement, tangled with the kinds of job cuts that come with taxation on environmental issues and socialist policies, they should be complaining about the democrat party. Instead, as always, they play the victim, in this case, to the republican party.

"The only tentative Republican gesture to millennial power to date is the GOP's sudden fascination with a new social network platform, Twitter. By choosing Twitter -- with its limitations on content -- to connect to millennials, Republicans are actually demonstrating how little they know about this generation's commitment to engaging in the content-rich challenges of rebuilding the nation's civic institutions and national unification."

While I agree that Twitter isn't exactly reaching out 110% to the youth, why is it uncool for republicans to do it but a fantastic approach for Obama? Hypocrisy.

It's not that republicans aren't appealing to the youth, it is that they are losing on the educational front. Youth need to be educated on multi-party platforms to make educated decisions, instead, our educational system crams a bunch of liberal mentalities down their throat as soon as they can. I actually think the earliest I can remember, dealing with environmental issues anyway, was the movie Ferngully that came out when I was young. Oh no, the deforesting smog monster is going to kill the fairies! What a bunch of nonsense and indoctrination.

To top it all of, we now have criticism of a person that is actually trying to help, Bristol Palin.

Instead, teens are saying she is trying to further her mother's political career and make herself a celebrity.

"I don't think it's her real opinion," the 17-year-old told ABCNews.com. "She's just trying to help her mother. She said it herself that abstinence education doesn't work. I looked it up."

"I don't get it," said Raina Brot, 15, from the Beacon School in Manhattan. "She's being kind of a hypocrite."

So now you are telling me that people can not learn from their past and try to help educate those that will be running into these situations? I myself, even find it hard to not use the word "mistake", the thing with that though is that I feel no human life is a mistake. If someone gets pregnant, that is God's doing and he wants that child on Earth, which is why I am pro-life.

To say that she is being a hypocrite is just a cop out for people to continue attacking the Palin family and to make a mockery of their situation. Of course, the liberals sit back and watch their little youth minions doing their dirty work to affect the 2012 election, without ever having to get their own hands dirty.

Why is it that the song "We are the world" is annoyingly stuck in my head as I wrote this?

$17 Billion Is A Lot...Outside Of D.C., Yea, Start Making The Changes Within Then.

(Gibbs, hold up your fingers for how many millions of times you have said "uh" or "umm" please.)

Is the mainstream media finally doing it's job??

In this video, you see Jake Tapper, ABC White House correspondent, picking apart the President's plan on reducing the budget by $17 billion, or 1/2 of 1% of the total $3 trillion+ budget.

Robert Gibbs, White House Press Secretary, uh ummm, extraordinaire, then defensively asked to go out on the streets and ask if people thought $17 billion was a lot of money.

ABC actually also pointed out that Obama scoffed at McCain's $18 billion budget cut during the campaign.

Good job ABC, try keeping it up. The original intent of the Press was to keep check on the government, that is why they were given so much freedom. They weren't supposed to be in bed with the President.

Is the one-night stand STARTING to end? Only time will tell.

Oh Snap Wanda, You Got Jokes!

(Hey Wanda, what do your jokes smell like?)

From this article:

"Rush Limbaugh said he hopes this administration fails," Sykes said. "So you're saying, 'I hope America fails', you're, like, 'I don't care about people losing their homes, their jobs, our soldiers in Iraq'. He just wants the country to fail. To me, that's treason He's not saying anything differently than what Osama bin Laden is saying. You know, you might want to look into this, sir, because I think Rush Limbaugh was the 20th hijacker. But he was just so strung out on OxyContin he missed his flight."

Sykes then said, "Rush Limbaugh, I hope the country fails, I hope his kidneys fail, how about that? He needs a good waterboarding, that's what he needs."

TIME's Karen Tumulty wrote "It will be most interesting to see how well Rush Limbaugh can take the sort of stuff that he dishes out on a daily basis."

But London Telegraph US editor Toby Harnden had a very different reaction, writing "Obama seemed to think this bit was pretty hilarious, grinning and chuckling and turning to share the 'joke' with the person sitting on his right. There's not much room for differing interpretations of what Sykes said. She called Limbaugh a terrorist and a traitor, suggested that he be tortured and wished him dead. What was his crime? Hoping that Obama's policies - which he views as socialist - will fail. That's way, way beyond reasoned debate or comedy and Obama's reaction to it was astonishing...Obama laughing when someone wishes Limbaugh dead? Hard to take from the man who promised a new era of civility and elevated debate in Washington."

A new era of civility and elevated debate, Toby couldn't have said it better.

Here is a bunch of nose-raised people that were there for basically, no reason at all. I am guessing, even though it hasn't been mentioned, that this little party was paid for with tax payer money.

When you take a look back at previous administrations that have had this get together you will typically find comedians coming in to do jokes about the President and his administration, but not here. This time, comedian Wanda Sykes, probably in cahoots with the Obama administration, instead opted to joke about the Republican opposition. When I say "joke", I say so without any other words to describe the hateful crap that spewed from the ex-sitcom, ex-star.

As Toby said, Wanda seemed to make it very clear that Rush Limbaugh is a traitor, should be tortured and wished death on him. With Obama laughing, I can only assume that this is that "compassionate" party everyone was so hopeful to get into office.

What a disgrace.

Bush/Katrina vs. Obama/Katrina

(I can't haz trailer?)

You know, for all of the crap that George W. Bush got for his handling of Katrina and the FEMA trailer fiascos, you would think that a President's name would be tied to this NYT article.

That President's name would not be Bush though, it SHOULD be Obama.

Could you imagine if Bush were still in office and the elderly, handicapped or both were kicked out of their FEMA trailers to live on the streets!? The liberals would be in an uproar.

Yet nowhere in this article was Obama's name mentioned (I scanned it twice to make sure) let alone to discuss what Obama'a plans are to help these "victims".

Earnest Hammond, a retired truck driver, did not get any of the money that went to aid property owners after Hurricanes Katrina and Rita.

He failed to qualify for one federal program and was told he missed the deadline on another. But he did get a trailer to live in while he carries out his own recovery plan: collecting cans in a pushcart to pay for the renovations to his storm-damaged apartment, storing them by the roomful in the gutted building he owns.

It is a slow yet steady process. Before the price of aluminum fell to 30 cents a pound, from 85 cents, he had accumulated more than $10,000, he said, almost enough to pay the electrician. But despite such progress, last Friday a worker from the Federal Emergency Management Agency delivered a letter informing him that it would soon repossess the trailer that is, for now, his only home.

“I need the trailer,” said Mr. Hammond, 70. “I ain’t got nowhere to go if they take the trailer.”

He ain't got nowhere to go Mr. President! How could you let this happen? Where is your compassion!? Where is your response to this!?

This one will get filed under my liberal hypocrisies folder.

Global Warming Update: Global Warming Data Wrong?

(Polar bear teabags an ice sculpture replica of Al Gore's face)

Listen, when it comes to the science on Global Warming, you have to read this report.

I can not believe this isn't on national news or anything.

As a brief overview of what this report found:

1. The coating that was originally used on temperature stations was changed from whitewash to latex.
2. The stations that were researched were also near temperature changing materials such as buildings, electronics and concrete, changing the sensitive data.

What this report points out is that just the change from the original whitewash to the latex was enough to manipulate the data by 0.3º F difference in maximum temperature and a 0.8º F
difference in minimum temperature.

That may not seem like much, that is until you compare that with all the hype over how much the surface temp has changed by 1.2 degrees for the twentieth century. That is what is pointed out by the Global Warming alarmists.

So in actuality the twentieth century difference COULD BE as little as .4 or as high as .9 degrees by coating of the boxes alone with the change!

When you further diagnose the problems and actually go to the sources to see if anything in their environments has changed the readings, that number decreases even further!

When you open the report and take a closer look at pictures of how close those sensors are to electronics, buildings and pavement that put off heat, you can see how it is screwing with the sensors!

In the pie chart provided, of the 865 stations that they surveyed, they found that:

• 3% were reliable for accurate readings
• 8% were close to reliable for accurate readings
• 20% were not-so-good
• 11% were bad
• 58% were completely unreliable!

After analyzing their data they found that surface temperature has more than likely actually only increased by an average of .7 degrees over the course of the twentieth century, a half degree less than what was put out there.

I highly recommend that you download the document and look through the pictures.

It makes you wonder, with all the research done in favor of the Global Warming theory, how much of that data was wrongly recorded because of faulty equipment and bad testings.

I found this to be a jaw-dropper.

Miss California, Carrie Prejean, Hunted By Liberal Journalists and Media

You knew it had to happen. There are photos out there on the Internet, and more to come, of Carrie Prejean topless/barely clothed.

In the one photo that has been released, she is turned around and covered up, showing JUST AS MUCH as a bikini picture would, but why would that stop the liberals who are pissed off at her for her stance on gay marriage?

If this stench seems all too familiar, it is. You only have to look back to the primaries to find the same tactics used on "Joe the Plumber". Disagree with the liberal agenda, be heard by thousands, get investigated until they can find ANY dirt on you. That is just the way it is.

I hate to link to this garbage of a site, but this article has Carrie stating:

"My comments defending traditional marriage have led to intimidation tactics that seek to undermine my reputation and somehow silence me and my beliefs, as if opinion is only a one-way street.

"I am a Christian, and I am a model. Models pose for pictures, including lingerie and swimwear photos. Recently, photos taken of me as a teenager have been released surreptitiously to a tabloid website that openly mocks me for my Christian faith.

"I am not perfect, and I will never claim to be. But these attacks on me and others who speak in defense of traditional marriage are intolerant and offensive. While we may not agree on every issue, we should show respect for others' opinions and not try to silence them through vicious and mean-spirited attacks."

She is spot on with everything she said.

If a liberal contestant would have done something to piss off a conservative crowd and they dug up photos of her nude, the liberals would be all screaming about the "power and individuality of the woman" and about how "what a great independent liberal spirit". Give me a break.

The double standards are sickening.

If anyone is going to make the case that she has been putting forth her Christianity on a showcase and that she is the one being the hypocrite, the answer to that is that this whole time she has been defending her PERSONAL OPINION on gay marriage. No one is perfect and for these hawks to keep attacking her is ridiculous.

Black, Conservative, American? Don't Tell CBS

(Wait a minute! There is another one in this photo too!)

Remember that CBS poll I mentioned that had the 0% DISAPPROVAL rating from blacks. Crazy right??

Well it is easy enough to prove them wrong, check out this guy:

"Let me tell you something, as a proud black conservative I've had to endure some of the most hateful and vitriolic denouncements from black liberal leaders and members of the media and political establishment who think I am somehow 'out of line' for loving America, loving freedom, loving our military men and women, loving capitalism and loving God. To them the fact that I am black and a patriotic conservative makes me an "Uncle Tom." To me it makes me a proud American, and I believe people of every race, creed and color shouldn't be ashamed for fighting for the ideals of liberty & freedom put forth by our Founding Fathers."

He has a lot of good things to say.

What an Uncle Tom.

Government Mind Control: Conspiracy Theory??

(No, you are wrong! I was thinking of Cookies n' Creme Ice Cream!)

You know those crazy conspiracy theories you hear all the time from people? Things like, the government let 9/11 happen or, the secret world society that controls all governments or even that Janeane Garafalo has a brain? Well I am about to take a trip down that alley and explain a little something about government "mind control".

Mind control, you think to yourself "what a crazy concept controlling some one's brains and actions", well that is because they are making you think that!

All joking aside, when you think about "mind control" you typically think of someone under a trance, hypnotized and following basic orders. You see these things a lot in science fiction movies and on stage performances. Something recently got me thinking though, does mind control really require a hypnotic state or can you produce the same results through easier means?

What got me thinking about this was hearing once again that the liberals in congress are trying to cook up a new version of the Fairness Doctrine.

As a quick rundown of what exactly the Fairness Doctrine is:

• It is a bill that would require that radio stations air liberal commentators with equal time on the same stations that conservatives talk shows are on.

Basically, it is the government sticking their hands in the private sector and controlling it for their own means. Make no mistake, no matter how much liberals complain about conservative news coming from FOX or the AM dial, that is the ONLY place it is coming from. The reason they are complaining is because it creates opposition and they are called out on the B.S. they are trying to pull behind the curtains of the public's knowledge.

Why is the Fairness Doctrine bad?:

Well first of all, liberal radio itself has been a horrible mess and rarely succeeds without government funding and bailouts. No one wants to hear the dribble. When you stick them onto Conservative radio, where listeners actually WANT to listen, the listeners tune out and advertisers drop as a consequence, creating insufficient funds to keep the radio programs going.

That is of course the final means of the bill, the liberals know that no one wants to hear their talk radio, they just want an indirect way of shutting down conservative opposition.

So where does "mind control" play a factor in all this?

It really does come down to a VERY simple means of controlling the public's mind or opinions. While keeping in mind that some people will follow their own values until death, the rest of the public (from birth to death from here on out, in the case of a passing of the Fairness Doctrine) will be force feed a one-sided political view with no opposition making it through the mainstream means to make them think about anything. By blocking out or eliminating opposition, it creates a very narrow view through media means.

My example:

Let's just say we go to a very basic Ice Cream stand where they serve Vanilla, Chocolate and Strawberry. I tell you to pick what flavor you want BUT under these circumstances:

1. If you pick Chocolate you will have to pay a fine of $200 because chocolate is not allowed in public anymore
2. If you pick Strawberry you have to immediately trade it for a Vanilla flavor

While the circumstances are EXTREMELY ridiculous to the picking of the flavor, the underlining of the message is simple and clear.

I am pushing you to pick Vanilla.

I have laid out the three choices but two of those choices have consequences.

The same goes for this Fairness Doctrine. By eliminating any other means of consuming news or viewpoints you are forcing people in a political direction that favors your needs.

I fully expect liberals to over-analyze everything I have laid out here, they will probably pick apart my ice cream analogy and try to turn it on me and say it has nothing to do with government. In that case, I am reaching out to the people that actually have an open mind and are smart enough to pick up on the all-too-true analogies here.

I would fully expect that there are Democrats that agree with me based purely on the fact that if the same thing was happening to their political side it would be wrong as well. This country needs a two party system, squashing out opposition only proves that you are scared of what is being said of you.

Treating the Symptoms of Illegal Immigration, Not The Source

(Just for fun, I gotta see how many of you came out of this again)

Let's just say that your family is driving down the road to come and visit you at your house. On the way there a drunk driver smashes into them causing great harm, if not death. Let's also say that you come to find out that this driver is here illegally. So they are:

1. Illegally here in the U.S.
2. Driving illegally on the roads
3. Intoxicated
4. More than likely have some sort of false identification (driver's license or social security card)

If you really think that is a far fetched story, you can search the Internet for like-wise crimes committed by illegal immigrants and find MANY. This just so happens to be a case that I hear a women tell over the radio in her own words.

Had that person gone through the system the right way or not at all, they probably would have never been on the road. I say "probably, because there is always the chance that had they done the right things they could still have been stupid enough to end up in the same predicament.

Where am I going with this? Who knows, cause I certainly don't, I am just a racist Conservative. No, I actually have a point here.

This week in the Supreme Court, the Justices ruled unanimously that federal identity-theft law may not be used against many illegal workers who used false Social Security numbers to get jobs.

Apparently prosecutors were using the identity theft to pressure the immigrants (illegal) into confessions of smaller crimes.

According to this NYT article:

“If it turns out that the number belongs to a real person,” Justice Alito wrote, “two years will be added to the defendant’s sentence, but if the defendant is lucky and the number does not belong to another person, the statute is not violated.”

While that is certainly not a "backwards" step, it still only treats the symptoms and does not cure the source.

As with so many other things that deal with illegal immigrants, we keep looking at and right past the word "illegal". They shouldn't be here in the first place and therefore should be subject to the law, not have laws made to cater to them.

Let me be very clear, I am all for immigrants, as long as they go through the correct process. Illegal immigrants only hurt and hinder the system while causing pocket problems across the country. My ancestors didn't start off here in America, they immigrated here from England and Italy, but they went through Ellis Island and did the right thing.

This also brings me to all of this conversion to Spanish language everywhere. Billboards in all Spanish, press 2 for Spanish. At some point you have to assimilate. Our ancestors did and to be a part of this society you should too. We appreciate our heritage but to think that a country you move to has to bend its traditions to cater to you is just ridiculous.

While I am on the topic, I hate when people refer to themselves as "African American" or "Italian American" or anything else American. You are an American, be proud of that.

That was another rant, excuse me.

Back to the article:

"Nearly 8 million illegal immigrants are working in the United States, the Pew Hispanic Center in Washington estimates.

Stephen H. Legomsky, a professor of immigration law at Washington University School of Law in St. Louis, said Monday’s decision would have a major impact on the strategy of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, making it more difficult for the agency to press criminal charges against immigrants with no other offenses but working illegally. "

"The Obama administration has said that it will shift the focus of immigration enforcement to employers who intentionally hire unauthorized immigrants in order to pay lower wages or otherwise lower costs. But last week the administration said agents would continue to detain illegal immigrants found in raids."

Some good news, some bad news...what can you do but sit back and watch the chaos?

Obama and Tax Havens

I hate to say it, but, I am "kind of" in favor of Obama's recent plan for the curb on foreign tax havens. "Kind of" being the key words.

I believe that I have said in the past that I am in favor of giving American companies, that keep the jobs here, heavy tax breaks while heavily taxing those that take their business elsewhere.

It is, however, not that simple.

I watched CNBC yesterday with two polar political opposites argue about this and the Conservative said that the problem would be that the companies and rich would take their business completely out of the country and we would never benefit from anything, losing thousands of jobs in the process. The liberal argued that if that were the case they would have already left and companies or corporations wouldn't leave.

As much as the liberal irritated me, she was right. Well, to be fair, they were both right!

There is a difference between the rich and companies vs. the Elite rich and the corporations. Frankly, the corporations could care less if they pick up their business and move to a different country, losing jobs in the process. It would seem that they don't care about their employees. Well here is a reality check for you, they don't, and they rightly feel that way. You don't start up a business to help people be employed (pay attention unions) you do it to make money. It is pretty simple, you do as much as possible to accommodate your employees to keep your business running and in that respect, yes, you care for your employees. The fact is you need to realize you are a cog in the machine, get used to it or come up with an idea to have your own company. You don't like Bill Gates and all his money, come up with an operating system better than his, put your name on it and run against him in the market, stop whining about it.

Rant over, now back to the issue, the underlining issue to all of this is the Corporate Tax rate here in the U.S., which happens to be 35%

Compare that to places like Ireland where the Corporate Tax rate is 12.5% for trading and 25% for non-trading.

It is no wonder corporations look elsewhere for business.

Where I agree with Obama is an incentive system using taxes as the tool.

If we give fantastic tax breaks to these corporations to have operations here in the U.S., it will probably bring a lot of business back and create more jobs. This only seems obvious.

The fine line that we walk is the possibility of pushing more jobs overseas.

Check out this article in the NYT:

"At issue are tax laws that were originally intended to prevent multinational corporations from being double-taxed, by the United States and by foreign countries, by allowing companies to defer reporting their foreign income to the Internal Revenue Service and to get tax credits in the United States for foreign taxes paid.

Economists are divided over whether higher taxes would give corporations incentives to move jobs overseas or impair economic growth at home. In the coming debate, both Mr. Obama and the business lobby will claim that their way will save jobs. "

"Congressional Republicans were relatively quiet. Senator Charles E. Grassley of Iowa, the senior Republican on the Senate Finance Committee and a frequent critic of tax schemes, said the president could “count on my support” to crack down on abuses. “But if he’s using tax shelters as a stalking horse to raise taxes on corporations at the cost of U.S. jobs, he’ll lose me.”

"Tax experts, including some with Democratic leanings, caution that the proposals could put American corporations at a competitive disadvantage. The United States is part of a dwindling minority of industrialized countries that tries to tax corporate profits on a global basis. Most European governments tax corporations on the basis of their profits within their borders. “If other countries are adopting systems that are friendlier to multinational corporations, then companies will have an incentive to locate their corporate headquarters outside the United States,”

"James Hines, an economics professor at the University of Michigan, suggested the president’s proposals could be seen as creating unfair trade advantages for domestic goods and services. "

What this means is that while it is a good concept, things need to be thought out a little more and discussed. If Republicans are even agreeing, this may be that grey area to bring them in for ideas on how to avoid the landmines. Having a two sided argument on these types of issues only helps in the end.

Global Warming Update: Let's Not Call It "Global Warming"

(Oh look, Hell has red lights...how appropriate)

That's right, in an effort to regain it's lost momentum, the Global Warming crowd (specifically Eco America) has decided that the real problem with Global Warming is the term "Global Warming". This only proves to me more than ever that this is a politically charged movement more so than an environmental movement and I pity the REAL environmentalists that are getting tossed up in the whirlwinds thinking they are part of something that really isn't there.

So what are their suggestions? Well according to this article:

"Instead of grim warnings about global warming, the firm advises, talk about “our deteriorating atmosphere.” Drop discussions of carbon dioxide and bring up “moving away from the dirty fuels of the past.” Don’t confuse people with cap and trade; use terms like “cap and cash back” or “pollution reduction refund."

Why is it that they feel they need to do this? Well, when it comes to the term "Global Warming"...

"The term turns people off, fostering images of shaggy-haired liberals, economic sacrifice and complex scientific disputes, according to extensive polling and focus group sessions conducted by ecoAmerica, a nonprofit environmental marketing and messaging firm in Washington."

Shaggy-haired liberals...check
Economic sacrifice (In the midst of economic turmoil)....check
Complex scientific disputes (meaning over 600 scientists that disagree with the Global Warming hoax)...that would be over 600 "checks"

“When someone thinks of global warming, they think of a politicized, polarized argument. When you say ‘global warming,’ a certain group of Americans think that’s a code word for progressive liberals, gay marriage and other such issues.”

Gay marriage? Where the heck did that come from? Apparently they want to get their liberal agenda out there as much as possible by slipping irrelevant topics into open opportunities while also using it as a tool to demonize the Right, classy.

“Another key finding: remember to speak in TALKING POINTS aspirational language about shared American ideals, like freedom, prosperity, independence and self-sufficiency while avoiding jargon and details about policy, science, economics or technology,”

• Shared American ideals
• Freedom
• Prosperity
• Independence
• Self-sufficiency

Hmm, those five talking points look very familiar. Looks like the truth comes out, one of the main objectives is to attract a more, dare I say, Conservative crowd, to their rankings. Those are all Conservative values! Independence and Self-sufficiency!!? Obviously not the crowd looking to Obama to be their savior and provide everything from welfare, housing, education and transportation!

"Opponents of legislation to combat global warming are engaged in a similar effort. Trying to head off a cap-and-trade system, in which government would cap the amount of heat-trapping emissions allowed and let industry trade permits to emit those gases, they are coaching Republicans to refer to any such system as a giant tax that would kill jobs. Coal companies are taking out full-page advertisements promising “clean, green coal.” The natural gas industry refers to its product as “clean fuel green fuel.” Oil companies advertise their investments in alternative energy."

What they are talking about here is "Carbon Trading" and "Carbon Credits", the one thing that liberal bloggers and journalists love to stay away from and only mention in passing. These ideas came from the almighty Al Gore, who just so happens to be heavily, sorry HEAVILY, invested in the business of providing those credits if we take that direction. This would obviously be why these two points are actually not "talking points" but "selling points" for the Global Warming crowd.

“climate change” is an easier sell than “global warming.”

Point proven.