Monday, August 30, 2010

AP Report: U.S. Wasted Billions in Rebuilding Iraq

I know I've used links from AP before, but given their history of biased reporting and the whole "fauxtography" affair from 2006 (and then some) I don't know if I completely buy into this whole report.

But regardless...

Maddow Lies About History Yet Again

See, this is why I call her "Madcow." Not that she's a cow (nice figure, not bad looking) but she is without a doubt one of the most intellectually-false minded figures on liberal television today. In other words, she's insane (mad? get it?)
It's one thing to be ignorant about history. Either making a mistake with a date, a name, a place, what have you. But to intentionally make stuff up as to play the tired old race card just grinds my gears. And she either knows her claims are historically and factually wrong, which makes her a liar and a race-baitor, or she is simply brainless with no sense or awareness of what she's saying.

"I don't purport to understand revising civil rights history so people will think conservatives were for civil rights and not against. I do not purport to understand these revisionist efforts. I'm just telling you that's what they're doing."

As for who voted for what legislation and who was against what in terms of the Civil Rights Act of 1964?

Vote totals
Totals are in "Yea-Nay" format:
The original House version: 290-130 (69%–31%).
Cloture in the Senate: 71-29 (71%–29%).
The Senate version: 73-27 (73%–27%).
The Senate version, as voted on by the House: 289-126 (70%–30%).

By party
The original House version:
Democratic Party: 152-96 (61%–39%)
Republican Party: 138-34 (80%–20%)
Cloture in the Senate:
Democratic Party: 44-23 (66%–34%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)
The Senate version:
Democratic Party: 46-21 (69%–31%)
Republican Party: 27-6 (82%–18%)

The Senate version, voted on by the House:
Democratic Party: 153-91 (63%–37%)
Republican Party: 136-35 (80%–20%)

Of course, there were a whole other slew of reasons and personalities (e.g. Robert Byrd) why the Dems tried to fillibuster and block civil rights legislation. I just wish the media would tell the truth and people like Maddow would learn it and report it accurately and fairly.

By the way, I do purport to know that Rachel Maddow is misleading and clearly doesn't know her history; modern or otherwise.

This is Why Matthews Doesn't Have Conservatives on His Show

Chris Matthews and the ever-irrelevant Joe Klein from Time magazine got thoroughly schooled on Saturday when Matthews actually had the guts to bring on a conservative onto Hardball.
He probably shouldn't have and this is a testament to why Matthews and his ilk at The Mess don't do it...ever!
Klein in particular showed his ignorance for the real world.

Sunday, August 29, 2010

THIS is Racism

Get it lefties? This is when you complain about racism. Something real. Not something because your ratings suck or people simply don't agree with your guy's policies, or attend rallies to show their patriotism.

'Israel Ready to Destroy LAF in Four Hours'

So says Lebanese newspaper A-Liwaa on Friday. Via the Jerusalem Post.

Beck Outdraws Sharpton

What does the difference in numbers mean?

Was it that people had their Saturday shopping to do? Was Sharpton's by invite only? Did Beck promote his better? Or did people simply want to hear what Beck had to say above that of Sharpton?

Reports on the event can be found here, here, and here .

Friday, August 27, 2010

Oh Wondeful!

This speaks for itself now doesn't it?

Schultz Loses It

I knew it would happen. These are unconfirmed reports (like anyone at The Mess would admit it) but apparently, MSNBC host, Ed Schultz freaked out when he was informed he would not be a part of that network's November elections coverage team. He reportedly threatened to "torch" 30 Rockafeller Plaza whilst using the f-bomb to desribe his employers. He then broke down and cried.

I'm not surprised. This guy was due to for a mental breakdown. Have you ever seen his tirades?

Thursday, August 26, 2010

CBO: Stimulus Created Millions of New Jobs

Ok. Great. If it's true. Where are they all? Let's not forget that "a lot" of thjose jobs were short-term government jobs. Such as census workers, construction on highways and bridges. Once the projects are done, the jobs are gone, right? I'd like to know exactly where these millions of "new" jobs are. Again, if it's true, then great. But didn't Roosevelt claim the same thing?

Of course, not that I doubt the CBO, I mean this is a good thing, right? But, call me crazy; I just don't trust info from Reuters nowadays.

However, and somewhat contradictory...

Is This Where it All Went?

Of course, not all the oil is gone from the Gulf, but didn't a lot of it simply "disappear?" Perhaps this is part of the answer?

It's at least very interesting, don't you think?

The Fate of America and the West?

0You've heard this before, sluffing it off as right-wing paranoia and Islamophobia, and of course, racism. You even heard it from "moderate" Muslims, ex-terrorists and even former adherents to Islam. But have you heard the warnings from the son of Hamas co-founder?

That goes along with this:

And this

Honor killings, Sharia Law, beheadings (by children even), stonings, terrorism. Is it any wonder people are "Islamophobic?" They're not finished and they won't stop!

And about that "tolerance" for everything non-Muslim?

Telling, isn't it? But we should all just ignore it and sing Kumbiya together. Better yet, somebody should have come to the defense of the old man and knocked that punk out. I definitely would have had words with him. I mean, a Holocaust survivor of all people! You'll notice the piece of dung didn't get very brave with the younger guys. Typical liberal cowardice.

Pataki Punks Matthews

Via NewsBusters.
Former New York Governor, George Pataki was on Hardball last night and he, like myself, had just about enough of the lefty media harping on Rush Limbaugh (I mean isn't Barack Hussein Obama the president's name?) and never pointing out the pure, unadulterated crap of Keith Olbermann. Matthews has been called on his hypocrisy before, but as usual, he tries his pathetic attempt at spin. Matthews also conveniently forgets that even prominent Democrats are opposed to the Mosque.

"In New York State, the Democratic governor and the Democratic speaker are opposed to it. Harry Reid has come out against it.
There is bipartisan opposition."

"...the developer, so-called developer of this project, earlier, about a year or so ago, plunked down $4.9 million in cash to buy the site. A year-and-a-half before that, he was a waiter. He then plunked down $5 million to buy the second site and got a mortgage in excess of $20 million or $30 million, a guy who was a waiter as a restaurant a year-and-a-half ago.
People are asking him the source of that almost $10 million in cash. He won`t answer the questions."

Yet, Matthews, Olbermann, Maddow; they'd all have you believe it's a right-wing, Islamophobic, racist deal.

Liberalism means never having to say you're sorry about making things up, or having to worry about being called on your ever-present hypocrisy. Especially when your guests are 99% liberal.

Wednesday, August 25, 2010

They're Baaaaack!

Well, they never really left, including their penchant for prostitution, tax evasion, government grant fraud, money laundering and smuggling illegal immigrants. Did I forget anything?

Yes. ACORN has returned.

Conservative Solutions for America

For all those lefties that claim (read: lie) about how the GOP doesn't have any ideas about the economy (among other things) and health care and they and they alone are continuing to make people suffer, instead of looking at where the real problem lies,

Well?, no actually. Democrats. You just can't trust 'em.

Where Does the President Stand?

Particularly on the economy? What are he and his university-trained, but no real world experience elitists going to do about it? I mean other than more bad ideas.

Stimulus to cost $27B more than original price tag

Economist: It's a depression

Reuters: Obama gets failing grade on economy

This is not news. It may be to Obama's minions in the DNC and MSM, but not to anybody, and I mean anybody who's paying attention...or is jobless.
Why post it then? Just for fun and to remind y'all he's not the saviour that the left is still pretending-at the cost of the nation-that he is.

Planet System Discovered

Since I've always been interested in space exploration and technology ( you can thank George Lucas for that, I guess) I always find it interesting when we find new planets or systems. Not just for the sheer magnitude of some of these findings, but for the fact we'll never stop finding them.

Astronomers has doscovered a planetary system containing at least five planets. Awesome!

Fun with YouTube

It's fun stuff, but scarily accurate.

This is your President.

The Real Radio Hatemongers

It's not like this (you'll notice most of them come from the hateful, vitiolic, Mike Malloy) via Newsbusters isn't already common knowledge, and you don't even have to listen head-to-head to know that liberal radio "personalities" are far, far more intolerant and hateful than conservative ones; who mostly want to have intellectual discussions and inform their listeners to the lies and historical revisions of their liberal counterparts. For example, Michael Medved, as opposed to Ed Schultz, Randi Rhodes or the aforementioned Mike Malloy. More over, the types of conservative radio hosts like Medved actually want more libs calling in than conservatives.

Get the full PDF Version here. If you're not either laughing hysterically or ticked off to no end because of the outright lies and the fact that the MSM challenges absolutely none of these quotes and accusations, you're not alone.

That's not to say that all liberal hosts are hateful and ignorant. For example, Alan Colmes may be a true, died-in-the-wool liberal, but at least he converses and doesn't spew out hateful rhetoric. Kirsten Powers is another one, although her most recent column in the Daily Beast is laughable. Always with the debunked, but still lied about racism charges against the right. I guess they'll keep beating that dead horse until the cows come home (which have been slaughtered a long time ago in the ugly zoo that is the liberal media)

Nothing's changed for years. The left just simply go on their radio shows (while themselves foaming at the mouth, dripping seething hatred) and television segments and say whatever they want about the right, with no one to answer to, usually receiving pats on the back from their liberal acolytes about how correct they are, with no one from the right to debate them or correct their historical and hyperbolic inaccuracies. Dan Rather and Tom Brokaw did it for years and continue to do so. Katie Couric, Brian Williams, George Stephanopolous, Matt Lauer, Dianne Sawyer and a whole slew of left-wing "journalists" continue that tradition to this day. They also have continued the tradition (since the late 90s) of losing more and more viewers.

"Despite the ravings of Schultz, Malloy, and others detailed on conservative websites for years. The national media only takes an interest when they perceive something outrageous from Limbaugh, Beck, Mark Levin, and so on. Why? The MRC feels that it’s a case of bias, and that’s certainly a part of it, but it’s more than that. The libtalkers highlighted in this report have almost no impact on politics, while the impact of Limbaugh is massive, especially in comparison. Most people wouldn’t know these names at all, especially Malloy, who gets about half of the quotes in the report.
Hardly anyone listens to the libtalkers. The combined radio audience of Malloy, Schultz, and Williams would not equal a fifth of Limbaugh’s reach, if that. Montel Williams can get away with telling a mother of 23 to kill herself because the only people listening are Williams’ family and the MRC."

But, it's all good, because just like television, liberals get destroyed in the ratings on radio (as well as the book market) then of course lie about the ratings to cover for their dismal listening audience that just keeps on dwindling.

The most laughable part (if it wasn't so enraging) is that these liberal hosts and their buddies in the media don't even acknowledge that these attitudes and comments exist on the left. If and when they do (by some act of God) it's excused; normally because "the right does it worse."
Uh huh.

Tuesday, August 24, 2010

Blame Bush, Part 1001...Maxine Waters Edition

Democratic Congresswoman, Maxine Waters of California helped the bank where her husband was a member of the board of directors receive $12 million in bailout money.
The House Ethics panel says the kept Waters’ family stock from becoming worthless, which the committee says shows that she personally benefited by using her office.
And Maxine Waters blames Bush.


Socialist Party of America Lists 70 Congressional Democrats as Members

Surprised? Anybody that has heard their "spread the wealth" doctrine and entitlement schemes (not to mention bailouts and take-overs) shouldn't be.

Here's the list from American Socialist Voter.

In case you missed it due to having to scroll down the page:

John Conyers [Chairman of the Judiciary Committee], Tammy Baldwin, Jerrold Nadler, Luis Gutierrez,Melvin Watt, Maxine Waters, Hank Johnson, Steve Cohen,Barbara Lee, Robert Wexler, Linda Sanchez [there are 23Democrats on the Judiciary Committee of which eleven, almost half, are now members of the DSA].

11th Congress:

Hon. Raúl M. Grijalva (AZ-07)Hon. Lynn Woolsey (CA-06)
Vice Chairs
Hon. Diane Watson (CA-33)
Hon. Sheila Jackson-Lee (TX-18)Hon. Mazie Hirono (HI-02)Hon. Dennis Kucinich (OH-10)
Senate Members
Hon. Bernie Sanders (VT)
House Members
Hon. Neil Abercrombie (HI-01)
Hon. Tammy Baldwin (WI-02)
Hon. Xavier Becerra (CA-31)
Hon. Madeleine Bordallo (GU-AL)
Hon. Robert Brady (PA-01)
Hon. Corrine Brown (FL-03)
Hon. Michael Capuano (MA-08)
Hon. André Carson (IN-07)
Hon. Donna Christensen (VI-AL)
Hon. Yvette Clarke (NY-11)
Hon. William “Lacy” Clay (MO-01)
Hon. Emanuel Cleaver (MO-05)
Hon. Steve Cohen (TN-09)
Hon. John Conyers (MI-14)
Hon. Elijah Cummings (MD-07)
Hon. Danny Davis (IL-07)
Hon. Peter DeFazio (OR-04)
Hon. Rosa DeLauro (CT-03)
Rep. Donna F. Edwards (MD-04)
Hon. Keith Ellison (MN-05)
Hon. Sam Farr (CA-17)
Hon. Chaka Fattah (PA-02)
Hon. Bob Filner (CA-51)
Hon. Barney Frank (MA-04)
Hon. Marcia L. Fudge (OH-11)
Hon. Alan Grayson (FL-08)
Hon. Luis Gutierrez (IL-04)
Hon. John Hall (NY-19)
Hon. Phil Hare (IL-17)
Hon. Maurice Hinchey (NY-22)
Hon. Michael Honda (CA-15)
Hon. Jesse Jackson, Jr. (IL-02)
Hon. Eddie Bernice Johnson (TX-30)
Hon. Hank Johnson (GA-04)
Hon. Marcy Kaptur (OH-09)
Hon. Carolyn Kilpatrick (MI-13)
Hon. Barbara Lee (CA-09)
Hon. John Lewis (GA-05)
Hon. David Loebsack (IA-02)
Hon. Ben R. Lujan (NM-3)
Hon. Carolyn Maloney (NY-14)
Hon. Ed Markey (MA-07)
Hon. Jim McDermott (WA-07)
Hon. James McGovern (MA-03)
Hon. George Miller (CA-07)
Hon. Gwen Moore (WI-04)
Hon. Jerrold Nadler (NY-08)
Hon. Eleanor Holmes-Norton (DC-AL)
Hon. John Olver (MA-01)
Hon. Ed Pastor (AZ-04)
Hon. Donald Payne (NJ-10)
Hon. Chellie Pingree (ME-01)
Hon. Charles Rangel (NY-15)
Hon. Laura Richardson (CA-37)

Don't you think it's a tad insulting to the voters that they call these people "honorable?" Especially the likes of Maxine Waters and Charlie Rangel nowadays?

I assume then, it is now o.k. to call these 70 Democrats "socialists?" Probably not, since you know, calling out a Dem on their true nature and beliefs is like throwing holy water on a demon.
"Ah! The truth! Get it away!!"
Plus it wouldn't be "politically correct" to expose them for what they truly are...conspirators of the destruction of America, in all her form. You know, it might be "insensitive" and hurt their feelings.

Monday, August 23, 2010

Yeah, Really

She was one of the most popular and successful governor's in Alaskan history, she's an independent, smart, classy woman with a good family and she's raising a special-needs child. She has a plethora of fans , followers and well-wishers. So...
Why do so-called "feminists" hate Sarah Palin and not the oppressive way of life for women who live under Sharia law?

Iran Unveils Drone Aircraft

In front of military officials, Iranian President, President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad unveiled a prototype long-range unmanned bomber. It is the latest of new Iranian-made military hardware designed to ward off "aggressors."

They're really gearing up for something, aren't they? How much do you want to bet these little devils have already been over Iraq and Israel?

As for any attempt at taking out Iran's nuclear facilities, power grids or any other infrastructure, military or otherwise, Ahmadinejad said on Saturday an attack on Iran would be "suicidal."

Oh, and by the way, they've started their nuclear reactor. Nice huh?

What's Next?

Marking victory at Ground Zero

The Eugenics Of Liberalism

A great piece from Blue Collar Philosophy, from July.

Sunday, August 22, 2010

Islam: What the West Needs to Know

It's long. But it's worth a watch!

H/T to The Right Scoop

Friday, August 20, 2010

Oh Jeez! CIA Forms New Center to Combat Nukes, WMDs

One of the Catalysts of the Recession Speaks...Out His Ass

`Remember when Barney Frank was defending his and Chris Dodd's decision to defend Freddie Mack and Fannie Mae that "all was well?"

"You're not going to see a collapse like you see when you see a bubble... so we on the committee are going to continue to push for home ownership."

"I was very much in disagreement with this push into homeownership." Blames Bush for going too far in this regard.

Despite the fact Bush tried to reign him in:

That's right. Bush tried to reign him in! But the Dems and MSM will not allow you to know that little gem!

Of course Nancy Pelosi would have none of that!

Incompetence and lies. That of the Democrats and of their enablers in the press.

Well, now that the Dems are running for cover, he wants to not only have "more authority and more ability" to instill even more socialist policies, he wants to abolish Freddie and Fannie. Maybe to cover his tracks or to replace them with a Democrat-dream of government-controlled insurance?
"What do you put in there place?" Like he hasn't already worked that one out in his big, fat head.

What a disgrace.

Bush Polling Higher Than Obama

Who woulda thunk it? This supposedly is the most unpopular and hated man on the planet (yes, insanely enough, even more so than Osama bin Laden, according to some loonie left polls) but even though he's been out of office for almost two full years and the Dems are still using the tactic "blame Bush" (which will carry over through the November elections) it seems he's more popular with Democrats now than he was with Republicans two years ago.

A fact not lost on the media (finally) where reports are coming out that Democrats, in this mid-term season, are running away from the president and his low approval numbers.

A prominent Democratic pollster is circulating a survey that shows George W. Bush is 6 points more popular than President Obama in “Frontline” districts — seats held by Democrats that the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sees as most vulnerable to Republican takeover. That Bush is more popular than Obama in Democratic-held seats is cause for outright fear.

"He is a walking radioactive disaster," one senior Democratic operative said of the president.

Ground Zero Mosque Imam Hates America

And this is the guy that wants to build a Muslim "Prayer Center" or more accurately a "Victory Mosque." He's apparently a Truther, too.

Nah. No agenda here. And since Blinky wants to investigate people who don't condone a Muslim "community center" so close to a place of Muslim mass murder (there's fascism for you) instead of where the funding actually comes from (and I haven't heard one MSM member even raise the question) that's maybe where you should start.
But that would be ignorant and bigoted.

CNN's Jack Cafferty expresses the point of the Mosques opponents. It's got nothing to do with religious freedom. No one has ever dipute that. It's got to do with the developers insensitivity towards the vivitms and their families.

Missing Dubya?

He's not the president anymore and he certainly isn't giving any more speeches or trying to campaign, yet George W. Bush tee-shirts are outselling Obama in Martha's Vinyard, an ostensibly liberal geographical location.

How Conservative College Students Cope

Interesting. I was wondering how conservative-minded college and university students deal with far-left liberal thoughts and ideologies of their fellow students and obvious anti-American (even communist and/or socialist) views of their tenured professors.

It has to be hell. Even with history and common sense on their side, they must (and documented cases prove they indeed are) tormented everyday by the loons they have to, nay, must, put up with; a lot of the times through the threat of grade reduction and ridicule. I had to go through it. Luckily, I had some "centrist" teachers and even one admitted consrvative one. Although, understandably, he wouldn't admit it publicly. I guess out of a fear of losing his job.

Thursday, August 19, 2010

Last U.S. Combat Brigade Leaves Iraq

Extremism of the Democrats

The right aren't the only ones who can be labled you know. This ad needs to be on TV. As if the networks would allow it.

Wednesday, August 18, 2010

Just Wondering...

Has anybody heard anything on the news about this or this? I haven't heard word one about either of them. Are the accusations made in them true or not? Have they been investigated or not? Is the MSM interested or not? Because if the media isn't reporting on these obvious stories of interest (not to mention the possible breaking of several laws) it obviously didn't happen. If they were reported, I certainly didn't catch the 10-second sound bite or four sentence blurb about them.

Democrat presidents...untouchable.

What Radical Islam?

Say what you will about whether or not a Mosque should be built near Ground Zero. But to take that current debate and use it to say that people's misgivings or even misconceptions about it are the result of paranoia, is to say the least, laughable.
Time magazine's Deputy Managing Editor (so you know they all "ooh'd and ahh'd" at this screed inside the Time newsroom) Romesh Ratnesar, has seen fit to tell everyone that has even remotely heard of the events of 9/11 that there is no radical Islam. Or at least it's really no longer a threat.
I have no idea how one could be so passive and/or naive.
And for the last time, when will the pacifists and bleeding Romesh Ratnesar: epitome of ignorance hearts understand that this whole deal isn't about whether a Muslims have a "right", or should be "allowed" to build a mosque. It is about and always has been about whether they should build one so close to the grave of some 2700+ people. The families and friends (and those of us with a shred of decency) are supposed to be the ones who should be sensible and have apathy?

While Ratnesar's summation about al Qaeda may be and indeed is true, what could that possibly have to do with a mosque going up (or not) in downtown Manhattan?

It certainly doesn't mean the threat of radical Islam is completely eradicated. Indeed, like cancers that go into remission, it can spring back with a vengeance after suffering losses in a given period of time.
But Ratnesar seems to think the worst is over and that the way to beat radical Islam is to pretty much "move on" from the issue.

How ignorance is supposed to be bliss I'll never know.

By comparison to Ratnesar (who's an Indian) check out this piece by Abd Al-Rahman al-Rashid, diretor of Al-Arabiya, an Arab TV station director; who says that Muslims "never asked for, nor care about [the] construction" of a Muslim prayer center next to Ground Zero.

Who's advice would you take more seriously?

Tuesday, August 17, 2010

Patraeus Admits Bush Mistakes in Afghanistan War

Recently on Meet the Press, Gen. David Patraeus, the catalyst in the surge of Iraq and the man responsible for the turning of the tide in that war has admitted that U.S. military leaderws inherited a faulty strategy for the war in Afghanistan at the end of the Bush administration and are still working to “refine the concepts.

Bolton Says Israel Has Five Days to Attack Iran's Nuke Plants

It was eight days when this interview was made...before the weekend. Now, as Bolton argues, Russia has helped to speed up any decisions on Israel's part.

Issa: Obama Administration Conducted Propaganda Campaigns for Agenda

Well what politician doesn't? However, most are not questioned about illegalities.

Since the beginning of the Obama Administration on January 20, 2009, ordinary Americans have financed and been exposed to an unprecedented number of public relations and propaganda efforts. Federal spending for public relations contracts rose to historically-high levels during the Bush Administration. Under one-party rule in 2009, the White House used the machinery of the Obama campaign to tout the President’s agenda through inappropriate and sometimes unlawful public relations and propaganda initiatives. Congress buoyed the Administration’s propaganda efforts by increasing federal spending on public relations for the first time since 2005.

The Obama Administration frequently used federal resources to promote the President’s agenda. In many cases, the Administration relied on the reach and resources of federal agencies and their personnel to promote certain of the President’s favorite programs. The White House also leveraged ties to the arts and entertainment community to embed propaganda in the content of television programming and artwork. These propaganda efforts violated appropriations riders and federal law prohibiting the use of appropriated funds for publicity or propaganda purposes.

The White House also used its inherent visibility advantages to multiply the effectiveness of websites containing misleading and controversial information. The White House used its resources to push visitors to websites that urge grassroots activism based on false and misleading information. The President’s right to sell his policy recommendations to Congress and the public is not disputed; however, using the resources of the federal government to activate a sophisticated propaganda and lobbying campaign is an abuse of office and a betrayal of the President’s pledge to create “an unprecedented level of openness in Government.”

Instead of facilitating openness, the public relations and propaganda activities of the White House have had precisely the opposite effect. The Government Accountability Office (GAO) has historically deemed activities involving “covert propaganda” to be unlawful. In those cases, the source of the public relations or propaganda materials did not disclose his or her identity as a federal employee or contractor. Many of the Obama Administration’s propaganda activities are unlawful because they are covert. Furthermore, several programs closely resemble those decried by Democrats and ruled unlawful by GAO during the Bush Administration.
This report examines several of the most visible public relations and propaganda efforts during the first year of the Obama Administration. Viewed collectively, these activities reveal an Administration better suited to campaign-style self-promotion than to providing transparent and honest leadership.

Where's the MSM? Well, the honest MSM? Nothing to see here, of course.

Tom Delay Exonerated

Wish you might lefties, but he did nothing wrong. You'll notice too, that he wasn't a part of the Senate while all this was going on. Unlike any indicted Democrat who stays in office, while the rest of the DNC and their media acolytes portray them as heroes and victims both.

Now, if only the media and DoJ would have taken this long in investigating Obama and his ties to certain, shall we say, "crooked" affiliations; William Ayers and Bernadine Dohrn, Jeremiah Wright, Tony Rezko and the whole Chicago political machine for starters.

Moreover, why isn't Harry Reid under the microscope?

They Don't Speak For Us

H/T to Hot Air

The Republican Study Committee chaired by Rep. Tom Price releases a “greatest hits” compilation video of Democrats over the last eighteen months that speak to their attitude and approach to constitutional government. We’ve seen the moments before in earlier clips, but the RSC puts these together with warnings from Ronald Reagan about the danger to liberty from runaway government and liberal policies. If these seemed trenchant decades ago, they’re equally relevant now:

Thursday, August 12, 2010

Reporter Suspended for Mentioning BP Contributions to Obama

How dare Doug McKelway tell the truth and inform the people of the District of Columbia that their president "may have" taken contributions from those who's asses he wanted to kick!

"According to several of McKelway's colleagues," reported Paul Farhi in The Washington Post, "the newsman's reporting may have lapsed into partisan territory when he commented live on the air about the oil industry's influence in Washington, particularly its contributions to Democratic politicians and legislators."

I wonder (sarcastically) if this had been reported about say, John McCain, would McHelway have taken any lumps?

On the same note, General Electric’s CEO put pressure on NBC reporters to go easy on Obama.

That darn, biased, conservative media, huh?

N.H. Democrat Wishes Palin Dead

I'm not even going to comment on the obvious hypocrisy about the "party of tolerance." I'm expecting less from the media. Once again (and again and again) being a liberal Democrat means say whatever you want and you'll never have to apologise. And being a liberal reporter means never having to report on it.

I'll bet Keith Halloran will be the new short-term hero of the left.

Ted Stevens Dies in Plane Crash

ABC news has reported that former Alaska senator, Ted Stevens, 86, has died in a plane crash in the nortwest region of that state, along with four other people.

More from the Canadian Broadcasting Corp.

Liberal Think Tank Dispels Myth of Bush Tax Cuts Just for the Rich

For years the liberal media has tried to paint the inaccurate picture that Republican tax cuts only favor the rich. Well, their one of their own favourite sources, the Tax Policy Center, a division of the liberal Brookings Institution, has issued a report that doesn't exactly gel with their wishful assessments.

Check out the PDF

"According to Treasury, the total ten-year cost of completely extending the Bush tax cuts is $3.675 trillion. The ten-year cost exclusively associated with extending tax cuts to folks Obama, the Democrats, and the media consider rich is $679 billion.
This means that almost $3 trillion of the cost associated with the Bush tax cuts over the next ten years, or 82 percent, IS NOT for benefits to the so-called rich.
As such, despite what the Left and their media minions have been claiming, 82 percent of the Bush tax cuts benefited the poor, middle-class, and upper-middle class in this country. "

H/T to Newsbusters and Noel Sheppard

So, if and when the Democrats choose to let the Bush tax cut expire, they'll choose to do away with $3 Trillion in tax cuts for the middle class?
How will the liberal pundits, MSM and those whackos over at A Mess NBC spin this one?

Wednesday, August 11, 2010

Just Asking For It

Talk about pumping up the rhetoric. Iran is now officially threating (baiting?) The U.S. about how they have "dug mass graves for American soldiers" in the unlikely event that Obama or the next president orders a strike on Iran, in aid to not only Israel, it seems, but to other Mid-East/Arabic countries that do not care for Iran's stance and arrogance, not just toward Israel, but to the international community as well. It's becoming abundantly clear that Iran with a nuclear arsenal is a very bad, bad thing for everybody involved. And that means everybody.

The Dominion of Liars

Although this piece is essentially a rip at President Obama and his capacity for BS, it is about all politicians that promise what we want to hear then, either change their minds or outright lie about why they ultimately didn't do as promised. As we all know, it happens on both sides with frighteningly regularity.

Tuesday, August 10, 2010

Finally, A Democrat with Brains

I have to give Democrat Representative, Howard Berman a little credit here. He apparently had an epiphany (that the rest of us would call common sense) about sending military aid to Lebanon. He's none too sure that American-backed weapons won't be used by the heavily-influential Hezbollah to attack Israel.

Ya think!? Why is Lebanon getting military support from the U.S. again?

Even Some Muslims Oppose Ground Zero Mosque

She must be racist. How else (other than common decency and an attempt to better relations between Muslims and non-Muslims) could you explain her reasoning?

Believe it or not (as you no doubt read from the links within the piece) there are Muslims that actually don't support the building of the Mosque. Read their op-eds, here, here, here and here. but sadly, I suspect they're in the minority.

Good to know that these people actually exist. I mean I knew that they did of course, but you really don't hear from them too much, do you? That's the reason for all the cries from the right about "Where are all the tolerant, moderate Muslims? Why aren't they standing up?"

We still have to be vigilant. Even if a warning comes by way of "fiction."

UPDATE: And if that wasn't enough, look who's whole-heartedly endorsing the plan.

Barbara Boxer-Baby Killer

I mean it too. No matter what your personal stance on abortion (partial birth abortion to be precise) whether you believe in the timing of the procedure (in which trimester it should be performed) who will pay for it, and all religious aspects aside, this woman is a monster and a cowardly one at that.

Recovery Summer v/s Mission Accomplished...Will the Media Notice?

With all the ballyhoo the MSM made out of George W. Bush's "mission accomplished" statement, compared to President Obama's "recovery summer" that it most certainly is not due to rising unemployment, the growing deficit and other economic casualties due to his administrations ineffectualness, will the media see the irony and bias in not comparing the two? Do they even dare to expose their own hypocrisy? Um, no.

Monday, August 09, 2010

MSNBC and Race...Infinitum

There are just no words about how one network can keep trumping up the same inane charges every day. Hardball host, Chris Matthews, just like Rachel Maddow is leading the charge, time and time again in ignoring the real opposition to President Barack Obama and focusing on race to detour the American public on why Democrats are failing.

Again, is it any wonder their ratings are in the toilet and these race-baiting Democrat shills have no credibility?

Sunday, August 08, 2010

Ground Zero Mosque v/s Good Taste

Call it hatred. Call it racism. But the man is right. It has nothing to do with tolerance. Funny how no one has called for political correctness or religious tolerence on behalf of the families of the 9/11 victims or Christians in general.

Waiting for MSNBC to Jump All Over This One

Can you just hear Olbermann, Maddow, Schultz and company jumping on this one? "See how racist whitey is?"

No, I'm not condoning it, just waiting to see how the folks at The Mess will use it. How long will it take them to assume these crimes are the result of an angry, racist (which seems the case-this time) Tea Party member?

The Desperate Faces of Barack Obama

Will Bush-bashing help Democrats win over weary voters?

That's the question. The reason Barack Obama and the Democrats are asking themselves, and indeed implementing it into their battle plan for the November elections, is that the president's so-called "ideas" have resulted in exactly bubkiss. Stimulus? Hasn't worked other to raise unemployment to almost 10%. Cash for Clunkers? Not so good. Immigration? No different than the last 20 years. However, what's interesting is the president and the media won't tell you about how they've used quite a number of Bush ideas and policies. Guantanamo Bay? Still not closed. Certain provisions of the Patriot Act? Still in effect. A new SWIFT deal? The war in Iraq? Still not over. And there's still the matter of the Bush tax cuts that are soon set to expire.

So when the Democrats start desperately whining about how it's "still Bush's fault" keep in mind how that seems like a cry for a distraction due to no feasible, substantial, tangible ideas on their part. Afterall, why decry the previous administration if all your ideas and policies are so wonderful and successful?

Was the BP Oil Spill Over Exaggerated?

President Obama has called it "the worst environmental disaster America has ever faced." But was it really? Sure they have been some obvious and disastrous effects on marine life and the fishing industry to be sure but was it as bad as the president and the media made it out to be; or was it another over-the-top media-induced disaster such as the Swine Flu or Global Cooling?

Maddow Fishing for the Racist Boogeyman at FOX Again

After the debacle about the Shirley Sherrod video and how FOX News supposedly edited and incessantly played it that got Sherrod fired, MSNBC's always opportune-minded at playing the race card whenever possible, Rachel Maddow hypocritically showed a highly edited video compilation of Bill O'Reilly to make him look racist. She maintains that after her race-baiting appearance on the David Letterman show in which once again made false accusations about the so-called racism at FOX News Channel, that O'Reilly's rebuttal was "bullpucky." Keep that in mind as you read this piece from FNC's Bret Baier and his own rebuttal to Maddow and how she herself used edited video to smear O'Reilly and FOX News.

It just goes to show how desperate the DNC minions at The Mess are. The DNC, MSNBC, the NAACP; all hedging their bets that if they confuse the real issues with the "state of race relations" in America, they can help the Dems hold on to power. Pathetic really, isn't it?

Here's a good rebuttal of Maddow from Verum Serum.

Saturday, August 07, 2010

Paul Krugman, Owned!

Ever since Bill O'Reilly got in his smug little face and told him to rightfully "Shut up!" for jammering on so long about arrogantly-positioned opinions and ignorance to the facts at hand, I've never paid much intellectual respect to the New York Times' Paul Krugman. He's just a smarmy little puke. And now, much to my delight, Fred Douglass over at American Thinker has keyed a wonderful illumination into Krugman's self-induced Shangri-La of a world where no one questions his intellect and are all awe-inspired by his obvious brilliant insight. Plus, he recently had to eat a bit of that mountain of crow that's been waiting to be devoured whenever he gets a minute because of Commenters have called him out on his logic and assumptions. I'm surprised he didn't delete the comments. However, he has limited them. This is one guy that definitely proves that a Pulitzer means squat.

Friday, August 06, 2010

Gay Judge Shoots Down Prop 8

H/T to Moonbattery.

An openly gay judge has said that California's Proposition 8 is "unconstitutional." If that's the ruling, then proponents of the bill will have to appeal it, like those who lose a court battle always do. However, isn't it a little on the conflict of interest side to have a gay judge to rule on this? Even just a little?

It must be said however, that although I mostly agree with "Van Helsig's" take on this development, I would have framed my discontent a little different. But the bottom line is, why do these judges continue to spit on the rule of law. What's the point of the voter's saying what they believe in if some judge with an agenda can just strike it down on a whim? What's the point of voting?

The Birth of Nancy Pelosi


Are Ya Freakin' Kidding Me?

Kagan Confirmed

Thursday, August 05, 2010

Really...Who Cares?

I didn't care when one of the Bush girls got married (in fact, I care so little, I don't even know which one it was) and I care even less about this. I think most people are with me on this. What's the difference between this and some who cares celebrity wedding?

Want to Know the Real Obama?

Check it. A little clicking and magnifying may help.

Huh? Who's He Talking About?

It cetainly wasn't his father.

The Kenyan communist Barack Obama Senior, born in 1936, was 9 years old when WWII ended.

Maybe Barry meant his adoptive father, Lolo Soetoro. But the Indonesian Soetoro was 10 years old when WWII ended.

Some say that the reason Obama has spent a fortune to keep his birth certificate from the public is that his actual father was his childhood mentor, the communist, rapist, and potential enemy agent Frank Marshall Davis. Born in 1905, Davis was plenty old enough for WWII. But he never in a million years would have fought for this country, any more than Obama would.

We can only conclude that Comrade Obama was actually referring to his uncle, who supposedly helped liberate Auschwitz and therefore must have fought in the Soviet Red Army.

Incredibly, there are still people foolish enough to believe anything that comes out of this clown's mouth.

H/T to Moonbattery

Palin to Obama: Knock it Off Already

Just...beautiful! And maybe while that car "was in the ditch," (like it's all cleaned off and ready to roll, thanks to the Democrat Saviour Party) Obama should have left the actual drivers; Reid, Pelosi, Frank and Dodd, in the ditch to walk home.

To the Left...

Madcow Strikes Again

So The Mess's perennial race-baitor is at it again. This time she used the platform of the David Letterman show to spew her hateful, contrived, tired old racism charge against the right. Still claiming that the ACORN/Black Panther/Sherrod scandals were nothing of the sort and trying to claim whites are nothing but "scared" of blacks. Ah, the school of Michael Moore "everyone be afraid of people who are different." Next thing you know, Maddow will be advocating that all black men carry neon pink wallets so that the police don't accidentally shoot them, thinking they're guns. My God, what an ignoramus. And an intentional one, too.
Compound these re-hashed, false claims with their religion of global warming and who's trying to scare who?

Letterman had it right. Let's move on already. Stop talking about it, especially the false allegations (an opinion first mentioned by Morgan Freeman on the show; then by Bill Cosby in New Orleans)
Unfortunately for Letterman, he thought he was shilling for Maddow when in fact, conservatives have been almost pleading this for years:

"...these people are continuing to fan this flame and excuse me for mixing metaphors here that is cancer. I mean leave it alone. Let it go away. It's not right. Why, there are other problems now that need to be addressed."

Letterman still touted the non-existent FOX News lies and propaganda:
"So, in, in, in the collective ideology of Fox and others, to what end? What is the objective of this sort of nonsense?"

Maddow tries to preach about how she is the racial savior. How she and the loony left know about social discourse.
But she has the right idea..."And so maybe that's the best, that's the best antidote is just by sheer mockery of the people who do it."

Don't worry, Rachel. We will.
It's amazing how getting your butt kicked in the ratings every year will mess with your mind, huh?

And while perusing the Newsbusters site, I found an obvious theme here, just in the next few stories:

CBS 'Evening News' Bemoans Lack of Diversity in FDNY

MSNBC's Cenk Uygur Assails Hateful Conservatives Who Opposed Women and Blacks

Colbert Claims Laura Ingraham's Baby-Back Ribs Jokes Are 'The Most Hideous, Hackneyed Racial Stereotypes'
Once again, only liberals are allowed to use humor.

Aren't you sick of it yet? Given the fact that the left wants you to forget about them filibustering the Civil Rights legislation and then trying to lie about it for the last 50 years? Given the fact it was the Democrats that wanted to keep slavery? Who do they think they're fooling, except the ignorant and succeptable university students and useful idiots that surround them?

Wednesday, August 04, 2010

Missed Him

It's Off

Okay, so, they're not getting married afterall. I didn't they would. Actually, I didn't have a clue either way. But it seemed to be "news" at the time, so...

But since I don't really care either way, this is the last of it from me.

Pining for the Days of Bush?

Along with this that I posted back in April, it seems more news on those who are seemingly "clamoring" for the days of George W. Bush are being ignored by the liberal press. Now AIDS activists in Africa feel "rage for Obama and 'pine' for Bush" and the Washington Post doesn't feel it warrants any attention beyond their A10 section.

Matthews Calls Out Dean on Sherrod Video

Last Thursday on MSNBC's Hardball, host Chris Matthews, believe it or not, actually defended Andrew Breitbart from Howard Dean. Moreover, he actually busted the former Vermont governor on his lack of facts on the content of the video, as Dean stumbles and stammers trying to change his pathetic excuse for a story.

As for Matthews? Well, credit is due where it's due.

Don't Blame Obama...On This One At Least

If anyone who thinks that by fulfilling an election promise to "end the Iraq War" and "pull out American troops by 2011" is just cause to be irate at President Obama, think again. George W. Bush signed the Status of Forces Agreement (SOFA) on Nov. 16, 2008. The Iraqi parliament signed it on Nov. 27, 2008.

Of course this should all be predicated on just how the war is going and if their mission has indeed been accomplished, as Obama has recently himself proclaimed, with no snickering from the left I might add.

However, just like when the left freaked out when Bush said initial combat operations in Iraq (which was more or less true) was "mission accomplished," the war is not over. Charles Krauthammer opines that washing his hands of Iraq will only allow Iran to provide unwanted influence and move in on the obvious power vacuum that will erupt when the U.S. pulls out.

So while you can't blame Obama about provisions of an agreement with the Iraqi government that was signed before he took office, the result of pulling troops out too soon can be laid at his feet. Then the left can really claim it's "his Vietnam." But something tells me they wouldn't.

Cafferty Sees Obamacare For What It Is

He said on CNN's Situation Room last night that "ObamaCare is "shaping up to be exactly what the critics were afraid it would be." Referring to the recent report from the Congressional Research Service, Cafferty claimed, "it's 'impossible' to estimate the number of agencies, boards, and commissions that will be created by this new law. [The report] points to many reasons for this. First off, the parts of the law that create these new bodies vary drastically. In some cases, the law gives a lot of details- in other cases, barely a mention."

Uh oh.

Tuesday, August 03, 2010

To the President's Credit

President Obama has sent a letter to the PLO sternfully advocating that Mahmoud Abbas get back to peace talks with Israel.

Obama asked Abbas to "go to direct negotiations and (wrote) that he can't help the Palestinians unless they go to direct negotiations. Obama said he expects Abu Mazen to "agree to this demand, and that not accepting it would affect the relations between the Palestinians and the Americans."

I Never Heard About This

A worthy patriot indeed. The anniversary itself was actually back in April. The 30th anniversary was in 2006. I've heard nothing about it until now, hence the title of this post.

Monday's take...

House Charges Waters with Ethical Violations

Tax Cuts Stimulate...Period!

So let them do that instead of re-writing history and playing with people's pocketbooks and future just to satisfy your shillness for a fabricated Democrat legacy and policies that have no historic basis for a positive outcome.

Fareed Zakaria, a CNN pundit who fancies himself a economic wizard, claims ignorantly and dishonestly that the Bush tax cuts due to expire soon should be allowed to do so because their expiration will fuel economic growth when you tax businesses, large or small. Huh? History says otherwise...

(with an assist from Noel Sheppard)

Zarkaria says...

"The "Bush tax cuts," passed in 2001 and 2003, remain the single largest cause of America's structural deficit -- that is, the deficit not caused by the collapse in tax revenue when the economy goes into recession. The Bush administration inherited budget surpluses from the Clinton administration. What turned these into deficits, even before the recession? There were three fundamental new costs: the tax cuts, the Medicare prescription-drug bill and post-9/11 security spending (including the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan). Of these the tax cuts were by far the largest, adding up to $2.3 trillion over 10 years. According to the Congressional Budget Office, nearly half the cost of all legislation enacted from 2001 to 2007 can be attributed to the tax cuts....All of the Bush tax cuts were unaffordable. They were an irresponsible act of hubris enacted during an economic boom."

(The full article here)

First of all, the man should really link to whom he accredited his link to, not from another source who "said this." That wasn't from the CBO, but the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities, which in itself is a liberal think tank. Not exactly an impartial body of economic information.

The first of these cuts was implemented in the summer of 2001 while the economy was still in the recession that began in March of that year.
As Zakaria clearly has forgotten, the economy began collapsing as the tech stock bubble imploded in 2000 and Americans saw their wealth plummet in a devastating bear market that didn't end until March 2003.
That Zakaria misrepresented this in his piece was a clear example of media malpractice.
As for the 2003 cuts, although the Gross Domestic Product was already beginning to tick up by then, unemployment remained troublesome as the economy was still shedding jobs each month. In fact, the Democrats and their media minions were pounding the President about a jobless recovery.

With this in mind, a second round of tax cuts was implemented.
Regardless of what Zakaria or his liberal think tank believe, these cuts worked, for the GDP in 2004 rose by 3.6 percent - its best showing since 2000! - and unemployment in the next several years dropped from a 2003 high of 6.3 percent to a 2007 low of 4.4 percent.
In the years that followed this second round of tax cuts, employers added over 8 million workers to their payrolls.
Sadly, what is missed in all this discussion concerning these tax cuts was that the desired goal of stimulating the economy and creating jobs was accomplished. Folks like Zakaria have a terrible memory concerning just how badly America was suffering after the tech bubble burst and the 9/11 attacks.

But this wasn't the only amnesia Zakaria experienced:

Bill Clinton raised taxes in 1992 and ushered in a period of extraordinarily robust growth.
Really? Clinton didn't take office in 1992, Fareed. He was ELECTED in '92.
Regardless of his slip of the keyboard, what shills like Zakaria conveniently ignore is that the economy was already booming BEFORE Clinton was inaugurated.
Counter to what the media were telling people at that time, the early '90s recession ended in the first quarter of 1991. After that, the GDP grew by 2.7 percent, 1.7 percent, and 1.6 percent the remaining quarters of that year. Not robust growth, but growth.

In 1992 BEFORE Clinton was inaugurated, the GDP grew by 3.4 percent, its best performance since 1989. Yet, after Clinton's 1993 tax hikes, the GDP only grew by 2.9 percent that year.
More importantly, what Zakaria conveniently omitted from his piece was that in 1997, the Republican controlled Congress FORCED Clinton to sign the Taxpayer Relief Act of 1997 significantly CUTTING taxes.

Also missing from Zakaria's pathetic Post piece was that THIS was when the economy was REALLY going to take off as the GDP grew by 4.4 percent in '97, 4.5 percent in '98, 4.8 percent in '99, and 4.1 percent in '00.
So much for tax cuts HURTING an economy, Mr. Zakaria.
As for budgetary impact, the surpluses ALL happened AFTER these tax cuts were implemented in fiscal years '98, '99, '00, and '01!

So much for tax cuts causing deficits, Mr. Zakaria.
In the end, what shills like Zakaria refuse to either understand or admit is that much like your household budget, deficits are caused by overspending.
Let's assume that the outlays in Clinton's final budget only grew at the rate of inflation in the years that followed. What would our budget look like today?
Well, $1.863 trillion was spent in fiscal 2001. If this grew at the rate of inflation, we would be spending $2.295 trillion in fiscal 2010. We're projected to bring in $2.165 trillion in total tax receipts.
This would produce a highly-manageable $130 billion deficit, a far cry from the projected $1.6 trillion.

Furthermore, as tax receipts are projected to grow to $2.567 trillion next year, we could actually have a SURPLUS in 2011 - even with the devastating effects of the last recession - if we had only kept spending increases at the rate of inflation.
Of course, we didn't and next year we're budgeted to spend $3.833 trillion or more than TWICE Clinton's last budget.
With this in mind, despite the claims by shills like Zakaria, our budgetary crisis has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with the Bush tax cuts.
Furthermore, we have experience with raising taxes during bad economies, for Franklin Delano Roosevelt did it in 1937 resulting in a deepening of the Depression.

Roosevelt, Carter, Obama (along with Reid, Pelosi, Frank and Dodd); you cannot trust Democrats with the economy, no matter how much they smile and whisper sweet nothings about "yes we can," or "you can trust me."

  • /* Profile ----------------------------------------------- */ #profile-container { margin:0 0 1.5em; border-bottom:1px dotted #444; padding-bottom:1.5em; } .profile-datablock {