Monday, April 16, 2012

Wanted: Democrat Spring Break Chaperones. Adults preferred.

Not a good weekend for the team.

We never really lined up a good replacement for that Meet the Press assignment. You know, the gig that Hilary Rosen was supposed to handle? To keep the WOW drums pounding? Hil was supposed to be a softer version of previous Dem spokesmouth Debbie Wasserman-Schultz. Even her entirely new skin didn’t fool anyone.
debbie waserman 1debbie waserman2
Debbie, March; Debbie April (via Chick)
Once she opened her mouth, it was pretty obvious it was still the same old washerwoman. Somehow a female version of James Carville doesn’t play as well as the original ragin’ Cajun.
Then we had this hot mess to deal with, hot on the heels of the $850k GSA YouTube videothon (looks like the “It’s Bush’s fault” meme didn’t work here): a dozen Secret Service agents in Columbia busted with $47 hookers. Hoe boy.
No wait, that’s not a Colombian hooker,
columbian obot
it’s just a Colombian Obot.
Anyway, then we get…Hilz!?! Dancing and slamming down a brewski?
WTF? What is this? Is the entire administration on Spring Break in Cancun or something? Is it something in the water?
How are we going to Win the Future with this kind of shenanigans going on? Exactly what is going on here – have we switched to an “America Built to be Last?” These people all used to be serious people, doing serious jobs. Now it’s all, like, Girls Gone Wild or something. What next, tattoos?
I don’t know. I just don’t think this looks good. Big Guy seems to be losing his grip on the troops.
WASHINGTON - JULY 09: Presidential candidate Senator Barack Obama and Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton work their cellphones and chat together on his campaign plane at Reagan National airport  in Washington, DC, July 9, 2008. The two are traveling to New York together for a series of fundraisers. (Photo by Charles Ommanney/Getty Images)tfh-1.jpg copy

And then the next thing you know, I’m reading this headline: “Obama urged at summit to focus on Latin America.”
obama pink americaFocus on Latin America? That works for me, does it work for you?
At the rate we’re going, over half of North America might vote to have Big Guy focus on Latin America, and let someone else try working on “America: An Economy Built to Last”
2012-mitt-believe-in-america What the heck, we’ve tried someone who didn’t, so why not?
And besides, there may be a lifetime opening as el presidente of a nice little Latin America country soon.
hugo bo2
And now that he has some real leadership experience, Big Guy could be a shoo-in. Especially since Venezuela operates on a “Chicago rules” voting system.
And it sure sounds like BO really likes South America:
“I want to thank President Santos and the people of Colombia for the extraordinary hospitality in the beautiful city of Cartagena,” said Obama. “We're having a wonderful time. And usually when I take these summit trips, part of my job is to scout out where I may want to bring Michelle back later for vacation. So we'll make sure to come back sometime in the near future.”
So take that, little Mr. Smarty Pants Channel 4 local reporter Larry Conners!
We’ll vacation where ever and when ever we feel like it. And if you don’t like it, well maybe you just better remember who’s in charge around here, buster.
hil ties one on

Ease of Vote Fraud Fails to Faze Attorney General

Semi-News/Semi-Satire ^ | 14 April 2012 | John Semmens

Project Veritas’ demonstration of how easy it is to vote in someone else’s name failed to inspire concern at the Attorney General’s office. The demonstration involved sending a scruffy, young, white man to 61-year-old Eric Holder’s polling place to see if poll workers would give him Holder’s presidential primary ballot. Despite the young man’s lack of photo ID he was offered the ballot.
Holder called the demonstration “a stunt that doesn’t prove anything. No fraudulent vote was cast. The only harm that was done was to people’s confidence in the integrity of the ballot. Maintaining this confidence is the key to preserving civil order. If too many people start to doubt the legitimacy of elections we’re in for real trouble. Fortunately, Project Veritas has very little credibility with the reputable media.”
if you missed any of this week's other semi-news posts you can find them at...

The Pee Wee President’s Awfully Big Campaign ^ | April 16, 2012 | John Ransom
Our real-life, make-believe president has two things to accomplish during this campaign season if he wants to call 1600 Pennsylvania Ave home for another four years.
His first three-and-a-half years have been so bad, that he’s had to ditch a reelection strategy and come up with a the re-write of a screenplay that he can act out over the next seven months to replace the real accomplishments that presidents usual rely on to get reelected.
If the body of the story Obama has selected so far seems vaguely familiar to all of us, it’s probably because we have already seen the story on the big screen.
Obama is just adapting if for the much smaller screen he occupies.
First, the president has to convince us that like the real-life, make-believe Pee Wee Herman, in the film Pee Wee’s Big Adventure, that nationally we have lost something of value through outright and intentional theft.
In the Big Adventure, you’ll remember, Pee Wee lost his bike -called the X1- when the rich, fat neighbor boy stole it out of jealousy. President Pee Wee is trying to sell us on the idea that our rich, fat neighbors, aided by policies of the GOP, have stolen the national X1 from the rest of us, and this has resulted in widespread misery.
Second, Pee Wee Obama has to convince us that somehow he has a way of restoring what we lost.
These are bigger tasks than a president normally faces when mounting a reelection bid. Any other Pee Wee would have taken advantage of his first four years to do the things he promised in the first place.
But because only Obama’s rhetoric was real and the results of his presidency have been make-believe- in the sense that there’s no record of accomplishment to sell to voters, or at least not one that voters would approve of- it’s important for Democrats to come up with an alternative story to the one they ran on in 2008.
So, Obama and the 98 lbs brain trust has come up with income inequality as the X1 in the liberal reelection screenplay, thereby scuttling the fiscal responsibility theme that Democrats talked about four years ago.
What else can they do after no budget, huge deficits, failed stimulus and continuing, never-ending bailouts for everyone?
In some ways, however, you have to have a lot of respect for the liberals in preserving the theatrical unity with the Big Adventure story. The real-life, make-believe Pee Wee Herman, in a quest for clues as to the whereabouts of his bike, consults a medium who tells him that the X1 is in the basement of the Alamo.
The problem is, of course, that there is no basement in the Alamo.
This makes me wonder if Democrats consulted a medium to solve the income inequality problem too.
Getting past the fact that there has been virtually no change in individual income distribution in the United States since 1994- in other words income inequality is a myth- the Democrats have offered a solution that’s the political equivalent of a basement in the Alamo.

That’s because the Obama Tax on Millionaires that Democrats are proposing would do nothing to make income more equal. Assuming that rich people don’t opt to shelter income under capital gains- which of course they will do (hint: that’s how Warren Buffett claims he pays lower tax rates than his secretary)- Obama’s Tax would raise only an additional $46.7 billion according to the Wall Street Journal. Even if directly distributed to the 114 million households that make less than $1 million per year, it comes out to about $40 per year, per household. And of course, the White House isn’t actually referring to distributing money directly to households. Instead they are talking about “deficit reduction.”
Democrats want to raise taxes in the name of deficit reduction and then blow the money on a remodel job on the basement of the Alamo. Because if the last three-and-a-half years have proven anything, it’s that on any major issue, the solutions liberals prefer is just another of the Democrats’ version of a basement in the Alamo.
They tell us that if we just can get to this make-believe basement, then they can solve all our problems.
A Cap-and-Trade bill that won’t lower the earth’s temperature, the original problem we’re trying to solve?
Basement of the Alamo.
Health care reform that doesn’t lower costs or improve quality of care?
Basement of the Alamo.
A $1 trillion stimulus program that creates so few jobs that the administration has to switch gears and start talking about “jobs saved” instead?
Basement of the Alamo.
A debt ceiling agreement that raises the debt, but offers no real cuts to runaway government spending?
Basement of the Alamo.
An energy policy that makes energy scarcer and more expensive?
Basement of the Alamo.
And if there is one consolation in knowing how all this turns out, it’s that I can hardly wait until Obama does the Big-Shoe Dance at the DNC in Charlotte this summer., That’s because I know that afterward, he’ll confidently get atop a hog, ride off to save the national X1- and promptly crash.
At that point, what else could he do?
Note: You can catch a preview of the president's keynote address in Charlotte here.
Side Note: Took this picture coming out of church on Sunday. Asked people to look at this and then tell me there is no God.

Eight American islands in the Bering Sea to be given to Russia by Obama!

Joe ^ | Published: 02/16/2012 | Joe Miller
Part of Obama’s apparent war against U.S. energy independence includes a foreign-aid program that directly threatens my state’s sovereign territory. Obama’s State Department is giving away seven strategic, resource-laden Alaskan islands to the Russians. Yes, to the Putin regime in the Kremlin.

The seven endangered islands in the Arctic Ocean and Bering Sea include one the size of Rhode Island and Delaware combined. The Russians are also to get the tens of thousands of square miles of oil-rich seabeds surrounding the islands. The Department of Interior estimates billions of barrels of oil are at stake.
The State Department has undertaken the giveaway in the guise of a maritime boundary agreement between Alaska and Siberia. Astoundingly, our federal government itself drew the line to put these seven Alaskan islands on the Russian side. But as an executive agreement, it could be reversed with the stroke of a pen by President Obama or Secretary Clinton.
The agreement was negotiated in total secrecy. The state of Alaska was not allowed to participate in the negotiations, nor was the public given any opportunity for comment. This is despite the fact the Alaska Legislature has passed resolutions of opposition – but the State Department doesn’t seem to care.
The imperiled Arctic Ocean islands include Wrangel, Bennett, Jeannette and Henrietta. Wrangel became American in 1881 with the landing of the U.S. Revenue Marine ship Thomas Corwin. The landing party included the famed naturalist John Muir. It is 3,000 square miles in size.
Northwest of Wrangel are the DeLong Islands, named for George Washington DeLong, the captain of USS Jeannette. Also in 1881, he discovered and claimed these three islands for the United States. He named them for the voyage co-sponsor, New York City newspaper publisher James Gordon Bennett. The ship’s crew received a hero’s welcome back in Washington, and Congress awarded them gold medals.
In the Bering Sea at the far west end of the Aleutian chain are Copper Island, Sea Lion Rock and Sea Otter Rock. They were ceded to the U.S. in Seward’s 1867 treaty with Russia.
Now is the time for the Obama administration to stand up for U.S. and Alaskan rights and invaluable resources. The State Department’s maritime agreement is a loser – it gives us nothing in return for giving up Alaska’s sovereign territory and invaluable resources. We won the Cold War and should start acting like it.
The Obama administration must stop the giveaway immediately.
Author’s addendum, Feb. 17, 2012: This is not a new issue. In fact the Bush and Clinton administrations are directly at fault for the same inaction. A maritime agreement negotiated by the U.S. State Department set the Russian boundary on the other side of the disputed islands, but no treaty has ratified this action. Consequently, it is within the president’s power to stop this giveaway. The Alaska delegation’s failure to put pressure on the administration is inexplicable. State Department Watch, an organization that assisted with this article, has confronted each administration and is currently confronting the Obama administration — and has been met by silence. I’m hoping this piece will help reinvigorate efforts to stop this handover.

Can't Feed 'Em? Don't Breed Em!

Conservative Outcry ^ | 4/15/12

"Can't Feed 'Em? Don' Breed 'Em" - - April 15, 2010
Seems like sound advice to me.
Advice that even my liberal friends can agree with. I mean, isn't that what the "Pro-Choice" movement is all about? Allowing women a "choice" when a mistake is made, when that mistake rains on future plans or worse yet, when a woman cannot afford to support that mistake?
Strangely enough, liberals and conservatives can reach common ground. They just disagree on how to get there. Liberals are Pro-Choice, which affords one the opportunity to "fix" a mistake, while conservatives, for the most part, are Pro-Life, preferring abstinence instead. Liberals subscribe to the belief that government should provide for their contraceptive needs, while conservatives don't believe in funding protection against one's sexual exploits. At the core, however, remains the common belief that one should not breed children if one cannot afford children. As I said, sound advice even my liberal friends can agree with.
With that said, today's political climate would be so much more civil if we chose to focus on our common beliefs, and agree to disagree on methodology on how to achieve them. I suspect we could get a majority of both houses of congress to pledge support for a "Can't Feed "Em? Don't Breed 'Em" campaign. Not a bill promoting contraception or the advantages/disadvantages of abortion or abstinence, simply a campaign to get the message across - If you "Can't Feed 'Em, Don't Breed 'Em"!
How about it Harry? Instead of being seen as nothing but an obstructionist, you could unite both Republicans and Democrats alike around a common cause!
Now the debate turns to what should be done with those who have bred, but cannot or can no longer afford to care for their little ones.
"Mitt Romney Enlists In The War On Stay-At-Home-Moms (If They Are Poor And On Welfare)" - -
Again, I implore my liberal friends to focus on common ground. Both sides of the aisle agree that government has a responsibility to provide a safety net to those less fortunate. They simply disagree on how to do so. Liberals believe in just throwing money at the problem while conservatives would require one to work in return for receipt of government assistance. One could argue that Liberals would perpetuate the problem by their "something for nothing" solution, while the conservative solution might provide a pathway out of poverty by providing the less fortunate the dignity of work that others enjoy.
Curiously, the conservative approach would spend more money on the problem by also funding daycare to provide for the ability to work, but that's not the point. The point, once again, is there is common ground among the two schools of thought. Why not just focus on common ground, instead of sniping at each other over how to get there?
Who knows, maybe civil debate on the issues may lead to a common solution. After all, Bill Clinton was a proponent for coming together around a common goal. In fact, he and the Republicans worked together to pass welfare reform in the 1990's.
That seemed to work out pretty well...uhmmm...ohhhh...uh oh...he too preferred a work requirement!
Oh well, so much for that. Back to the partisan sniping!

Mitt's comments on the issue can be found here.

Video proof of voter fraud in D.C.: why Obama needs skulduggery at the polls ^ | 4-16-2012 | Chuck Norris

President Obama and U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder’s Justice Department have a new obsession to obstruct any state’s passing of voter-identification laws, even recently attacking South Carolina and my own state of Texas. Holder calls voter ID laws “unnecessary” and says voter fraud “doesn’t exist,” but new video proof in his own voting precinct proves otherwise.
Obama’s administration says they’re against voter ID laws because they are valiantly trying to keep minorities and the poor from being unfairly discriminated against. But the truth is that they are trying to keep President Obama in office.

They know that voter IDs are bad business for this White House’s campaign and re-election.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Great News

Posted Image

The Hero

Posted Image

Democrats Attack Women

Posted Image

Lost Wages

Posted Image

You Have The Right...

Posted Image


Posted Image

Trojan Horse

Posted Image

Buffett Rule

Posted Image


Posted Image

The Real War on Women

Posted Image

Food Stamp President

Posted Image

Communist Party

Posted Image

Tea Parties

Posted Image

Looks Normal

Posted Image

Eric Holder and black leaders indeed fear the New Black Panther Party

Breitbart ^ | April 15, 2012 | Kevin L. Martin

Americans must ask themselves whether Eric Holder and black leaders indeed fear the New Black Panther Party, as they all refuse to condemn their rhetoric and tactics in the last few weeks.

The Trayvon Martin Case is the latest in a long list of incidents into which the New Black Panther Party has injected itself, but nothing has measured up to its latest tactics, which include placing a bounty on George Zimmerman’s head with the qualifier "dead or alive."
It would seems to the most independent of observers that U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder, in his refusal to condemn this murder of hire scandal, approves the placement of bounties by private citizens on other private citizens.
One would not have to wonder, if this had been a group of Americans connected with the Tea Party Movement offering up a bounty on a private citizen, what the reaction of the Justice Department would be.

From the very start of the Obama Administration, it has seemed that Mr. Holder believes and believes in giving a great deal of latitude to the New Black Panther Party, as his department refused to entertain the very thought of prosecuting two members of the Party on charges of voter intimidation after they were video-taped by independent observers standing outside a Philadelphia polling place with billy clubs in hand.

One would not need to wonder what Mr. Holder actions would be if a black voter called the Department of Justice and reported an empty police car sitting alongside the road leading to a polling place in Florida; there would be calls for him to launch investigations into voter intimidation from political and media figures.
(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Obama Calls Romney’s Stance on (Enforcing) Immigration (Laws) ‘Very Troublesome’

abc ^ | 4/15/2012 | By Mary Bruce
President Obama, on a three-day trip to South America, attacked GOP frontrunner Mitt Romney’s stance on immigration reform today, saying his support for Arizona’s tough immigration law is “very troublesome.”
“We now have a Republican nominee who said that the Arizona laws are a model for the country … and these are laws that potentially would allow someone to be stopped and picked up and asked where their citizenship papers are based on an assumption,” Obama told Univision during an interview in Cartagena, where the president is attending the Summit of the Americas.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

Who Says Obama Will Obey the Supreme Court?

Capitalism Magazine ^ | 4-14-12 | Michael J Hurd
President Obama is reportedly shifting millions of dollars to the IRS to begin enforcement of ObamaCare.
This raises the obvious question: What if the Supreme Court strikes down ObamaCare, with a decision expected no later than early June?
Anyone who witnessed the passage of this legislation, as well as Obama’s term in office to date, should realize that question is irrelevant.
Obama and House Speaker (at the time) Nancy Pelosi vowed to “deem” the bill passed if they couldn’t muster up enough votes in Congress, as they ultimately did.
Obama ran on a platform of “transforming” America, and he meant it. Even he knows a government cannot shape a society into exactly what he wants the people to be. But he sure can use the force of government to try.
And this is precisely what he intends to do.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...