Convincing Proof: Obama Is A Phony

>> Wednesday, April 27, 2011

You can fool some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time. ~ Abraham Lincoln

At long last, Barack Hussein Obama has released his birth certificate, and now the issue of his citizenship and subsequent eligibility to be President is finally put to rest, right?

Of course, who could argue with this solid proof?

Click to enlarge.

Seriously, folks. This astounds me. Who, besides the willfully ignorant, could accept this obvious forgery as legitimate?

I won't lie. I have thought this issue a mere distraction for a long time. There has been no question in my mind that Obama is indeed a natural born citizen of the United States. Of that, I had no doubt. All the suppositions and assumptions and convincing arguments could not convince me that Obama is not a legal natural born citizen of the United States.

Now that he has released his "actual birth certificate", I'm no longer so sure. It doesn't take a rocket surgeon to see the obvious problems with this "document".

Look at the upper left hand corner. And then, compare the left border with the right border. See anything strange?

The so-called birth certificate was obviously and poorly cut and pasted onto a background with a nearly identical pattern. My God, the forger didn't even bother to trim the edges to complete the illusion of authenticity. He simply cut the forgery out and pasted it onto a nearly identical background pattern.

One would think in three years the forger could have perfected his art.

My 7-year old grandson could do a better, more convincing job.

Next, and probably most damning, look at the box labeled, "Race" beside his father's name.


Since when is Africa a race?

There are white people native to Africa. I'll bet there are Asians who are native to Africa. Is the continent of birth their race?

Obama was presumably born in 1961. (I say "presumably", because after this fallacy, nothing about the origins of Obama is certain) No one has ever disputed that fact.

But, I digress. Does anyone want to venture a guess as to what the proper and accepted term for a black person was in 1961? I'll spoil the fun for you.

It was "Negro".

Or, if that box on the document were to be consistent with the mother's race (which is recorded to be, "Caucasian") the race should read, "Negroid". Regardless, it certainly wouldn't be "African".

See, back in 1961, there were three sub races within the all encompassing human race:

Caucasian, Negroid, and Mongoloid, although the third was sometimes called Asian instead. I have never heard of a fourth race called "African".

I really don't know what to think about Obama's intent here.

I can't decide whether I think Obama is stupid or he thinks we are stupid, or if he is simply so arrogant and narcissistic, he doesn't really care if we buy his flim-flam or not.

At any rate, I am no longer convinced he is legitimate.

And, I know I am not alone.

Cross posted at Casting Pearls Before Swine


A Not-So-Pithy Review...

>> Friday, April 22, 2011

I typically offer pithy reviews on personal blog. But as the book from which this film is drawn still finds relevance in the hearts and minds millions, here then is a not-so-pithy review of the low-budget Atlas Shrugged, by Ayn Rand.

The Continued Relevance of Ayn Rand’s Villains

On Saturday, my parents called to report they had driven an hour into Reno, Nevada, to see Paul Johansson’s adaptation of Atlas Shrugged. Despite the film’s strongly negative reviews, the theater was full. Curiously, this scene was true across the nation this weekend, as the film brought in more than 1.6 million despite only opening in 300 theaters: an average of $5,600 per theater, leaving it behind only the heavily advertised films Rio and Scream 4.

Unfortunately, the quality of this adaptation is representative of its low budget and brief production time. The film meticulously retains the original plot of Rand’s opus, going so far as to lift much of the dialogue directly out of the novel. However, due to the large amount of material being covered, the result leaps through the original plot line in a somewhat disjointed portrayal, which can be difficult to follow. While Johansson is to be commended for finally bringing Atlas Shrugged to cinema after almost 40 years of negotiations, delays, and difficulties, it is disappointing that the end result is not more impressive.

Despite the film’s mediocre quality, its end was met by a surprising response in Reno on Saturday. As the main character, Dagny Taggart, climbs a flame-engulfed hill to be confronted with the destruction of petroleum magnate Ellis Wyatt’s oil fields — the lifeblood of what little remained of the American economy — she screams in terror. The camera pulls away, revealing Wyatt’s parting farewell: “I am leaving it as I found it. Take over. It’s yours.”

The crowded theater began to applaud.

While some people of all ideological persuasions, including libertarians, find Ayn Rand’s rather idiosyncratic beliefs and obscure moral code distasteful, the theater’s reaction captures the hidden resonance of her greatest work on grounds she would not have completely anticipated. Indeed, many of the film’s difficulties are less the fault of the director, and more of Rand herself. The primary protagonists of the book are emotionless industrialists, stilted and one-dimensional in their behaviors, thinking only of metal, railroads, and factories.

Atlas Shrugged is compelling, not for its heroes, but for its villains. Published in 1957, Rand’s description of politicians and lobbyists in a time of economic crisis is almost prophetic. These Washington insiders scheme behind closed doors to retain and expand their power. In elaborate press conferences, they attempt to convince the unsuspecting populace of their legislation’s necessity by vilifying productive companies and portraying their own destructive, self-serving designs as being in the interests of the advancement of equality, stability, and progress.

For instance, in Atlas Shrugged, the lobbyist Wesley Mouch decries the capitalist Hank Rearden’s invention of a wonderful alloy that is stronger than steel. And last week, in the real world, Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. took to the house floor to declare that Steve Jobs’s iPad was killing jobs. Congress must, according to Jackson, recognize that Apple is driving companies such as Barnes & Noble and Borders out of business, and the company should be stopped in the interests of fairness.

Jackson decried Congress for failing to foster “protection for jobs here in America to ensure that the American people are being put to work.” It’s as if he wanted us to believe the printing press was harmful to the economy because it decreased the demand for scribes. Such a condemnation of a successful business and a demand for protection of failing industries could easily have been lifted directly from Rand’s novel.

However, the similarities are not restricted to a lone Democratic congressman. Similar absurd arguments were bountiful on both sides of the aisle in debates about policies ranging from Obamacare to the bailouts. Americans are directed to believe that if they would just allow the federal government to act in order to prevent further change in the economy, then stability could be restored.

It is this paltry masquerade of politicians feigning action and granting themselves greater power in the name of equality and economic stability that leads Americans to Rand’s story. Indeed, Republicans and Democrats both put on a charade of activity last week, claiming to remedy our nation’s budget woes. Both parties threatened to shut down the government over a series of austerity measures amounting to a final savings of $352 million this fiscal year. That’s $352 million out of budget deficit of approximately $1.6 trillion, or .02 percent of what would be required to actually balance the budget. Politicians bickered over funding for relatively low-cost line items like NPR and Planned Parenthood, all the while ignoring the harsh reality that our public debt is on track to surpass our GDP.

In other words, Republicans and Democrats have managed to mortgage the entire household worth of the United States. Their remedy for this self-imposed tragedy? Grant themselves greater power through increased regulations and rising taxes.

With each repeated failure of federal action to remedy our economic situation, politicians reveal themselves more fully to the American people as nothing but self-serving villains. Their strategy relies on the appearance of action coupled with soaring rhetoric to convince Americans of their good deeds. Meanwhile, these politicians are gambling with our lives and prosperity, risking the well-being of hard-working individuals in thoughtless policies designed merely to secure reelection.

It is due to her apt depiction of these self-serving villains that Ayn Rand’s novel has climbed to number four on the top-sellers list on Amazon and that the film is likely to do far better than its mediocre quality would merit. Americans are growing tired of politicians gambling away their prosperity to preserve their own power. The crowd in Reno applauded as Ellis Wyatt walked away, not because he was some great hero, but because they understood the pain of working tirelessly while a reckless and unproductive government needlessly spends away the results of your labor and rewards your hard work with mounting regulations.

The idea of walking away has become attractive — and indeed, Americans are increasingly leaving the United States for opportunities abroad, with record numbers emigrating to Australia and East Asia.

So long as Ayn Rand’s villains continue to resemble the reality in Washington, the story of Atlas Shrugged will remain popular. The average American may not be a powerful railroad executive or steel magnate, but most believe they are entitled to the fruits of their labor. Many are beginning to realize that their future is being gambled away by politicians whose only risk is losing the votes of the individuals who have lost everything.

J. Patrick Rhamey, Jr
April 22, 2011


Wow! that last paragraph! Imagine that! A review which, like the book itself, closely resembles the truth of our present day to day struggle.

For anyone interested in where this article came from, follow the link below and register for the free email newsletter, or just bookmark the website. There's good financial news and perspective for one and all...

Whiskey and Gunpowder
Fostering Economic and Independent Thought


It Depends Upon Which Side of the Cockpit You Sit

>> Thursday, April 21, 2011

...but no one is served if we choose only to see what is outside our own window.

Do they suffer from fatal optimism? Or do they simply want what they want no matter who gets killed? ...metaphorically speaking


Scream if you want to go faster...

>> Monday, April 18, 2011

Standard & Poor: Heck Of a Job, Obama

The outlook for U.S. debt is not good.
--by John Hayward
April 18, 2011

If you've noticed a bit of a dip in the stock market today, one of the reasons is the new report from Standard & Poor's debt rating service, which downgraded the outlook for United States government debt from "Stable" to "Negative."

This isn't an actual downgrading of our debt rating – you'll know right away when that happens, because you’ll see toads, blood, and stockbrokers raining outside your window. Rather, it's meant as a warning – to both investors and the U.S. government. It means there is a one-in-three chance the United States will lose its AAA credit rating in the next two years.

Although S&P believe America's economic strengths "currently outweigh what we consider to be the U.S.'s meaningful economic and fiscal risks and large external debtor position," they have begun to doubt those strengths will "full offset the credit risks over the next two years." They're worried about our high level of debt, and while they appreciate the beginning of a serious conversation between the parties about deficit reduction, they "see the path to agreement as challenging because the gap between the parties remains wide." They probably were not reassured when President Obama threw a temper tantrum on stage at George Washington University and insisted that uncontrolled government spending is the key to patriotism.

Naturally, the clueless crowd at the White House – the people who brought you a "new normal" of high unemployment and soaring gas prices – dismissed the report as so much balloon juice. Austan Goolsbee, chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers, is quoted by MSNBC as saying Standard & Poor is "making a political judgment, and it's one we don’t agree with." Oh, good, so our credit rating is safe as long as Austan Goolsbee protects us by sneering at the "political judgment" of the guys who actually issue that credit rating.

The loss of our AAA credit rating would deal profound damage to an already rickety federal budget. We're paying hundreds of billions in interest every year on over $14 trillion of debt. A lower credit rating would raise the interest on that debt by billions of dollars, as well as making foreign buyers less eager to purchase American dollars. If the government responded by printing more money, it could trigger the kind of hyperinflation spiral that ends with hundred-dollar loaves of bread. No one should be under any illusions about the ability of the current Administration to resist the temptation of printing money to escape a fiscal crisis.

Liberal Democrats won't pay a moment's heed to the dire warnings from Standard & Poor. Instead, they'll draw the exact opposite of the proper conclusion, and use the report as a club to beat anyone who resists raising the debt ceiling next month. They should read S&P's statement more carefully. The analysts don't think our problem is that we're not borrowing enough money.

America, and its liberal elite, will learn the meaning of the word "unsustainable" when Standard & Poor chooses to advise the investors of the world to stop sustaining them. That decision will not be subject to the approval of Barack Obama or any of his advisors.


From the S&P report:

"On April 13, President Barack Obama laid out his Administration’s medium-term fiscal consolidation plan, aimed at reducing the cumulative unified federal deficit by US$4 trillion in 12 years or less. A key component of the Administration’s strategy is to work with Congressional leaders over the next two months to develop a commonly agreed upon program to reach this target..."

What really leaped out at me was the text I emphasized. I thought Obama produced a new budget? But this report appears to back up what others have been saying... there is no plan. Obama went out, and in a petulant, classless speech told everyone what he wants to see in "his" new budget, but now it's up to the "Gang of Six" in the senate to come to an agreement-- they appear to be holding all the cards.

Talk has been, if the US doesn't increase oil production soon we're looking at $5 a gallon gasoline. If the conflicts in Libya, Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Yemen, Syria, etc., spill over into Saudi Arabia, we're looking at further decreases in oil production.

Can we afford to await clean renewable technologies to save us from the very likely events that could cripple our economy? No, even if we start drilling tomorrow morning we wouldn't have oil filling barrels for at least a year, but every moment we wait for clean technologies to save our environmentally conscious souls the specter of economic disaster looms closer.

Sometimes what we want has to take a back seat to what we really need. If only our president understood this.

More from the S&P report:

"Key members in the U.S. House of Representatives have also advocated fiscal tightening of a similar magnitude, US$4.4 trillion, during the coming 10 years, but via different methods. House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan’s plan seeks to balance the federal budget by 2040, in part by cutting non-defense spending. The plan also includes significantly reducing the scope of Medicare and Medicaid, while bringing top individual and corporate tax rates lower than those under the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts.

"We view President Obama’s and Congressman Ryan’s proposals as the starting point of a process aimed at broader engagement, which could result in substantial and lasting U.S. government fiscal consolidation. That said, we see the path to agreement as challenging because the gap between the parties remains wide. We believe there is a significant risk that Congressional negotiations could result in no agreement on a medium-term fiscal strategy until after the fall 2012 Congressional and Presidential elections. If so, the first budget proposal that could include related measures would be Budget 2014 (for the fiscal year beginning Oct. 1, 2013), and we believe a delay beyond that time is possible."

Can the US economy wait until after the 2012 elections? If democrats retain the senate and Obama the White House, we're at a stalemate, and the problem worsens. Both parties are intractable in their ideologies.

I find it interesting that Standard & Poor sees BOTH plans as a foundation for a good start, and that good things "could result." The problem, again, is two diametrically opposed political forces which will work their positions to the detriment of the country. It's not about the future of this nation-- except as lip-service --for either, but for one more than the other. What it's really about is the consolidation of political power.

[Naturally I believe there's less of this in the republican party, but who reading this is surprised to hear it?]

If Obama loses-- as many expect --and democrats retain power in the senate, and republicans in the house, there's a greater chance of moving fiscal sanity forward. But from where I sit, the biggest obstacle to genuine, responsible, fiscal change is the democrat-led senate.

This country is barreling pell-mell toward an uncertain future, and one party appears hell-bent on maintaining a status quo that is no longer sustainable. Scream if you want to go faster. Make hay while you can. Rock till you drop... Or bite the bullet, and step back from the edge.

The choice should be apparent to all. But apparently it's not.


Questions to Consider

>> Friday, April 15, 2011

  [Something to truly be proud of...]

Reports indicate abortion is the leading cause of death within the African-American community in the U.S. According to the Centers for Disease Control (CDC), since 1973 -- the year of the Supreme Court decision Roe v. Wade -- 13 million African-American lives have been lost to abortion.

"Between abortion and black-on-black crime, as a people group we're exterminating ourselves. We're not loving our children in the womb or outside of the womb... So I have to do whatever it is that I can do to help save babies' lives and to make an impact on our culture.

"We've become a culture of death -- and I want to be one of those used by God to move us from a culture of death to a culture of life.

"Less than two percent of the African-American population is involved actively in the pro-life movement... So any of the babies who have been saved -- our babies -- have been because there's been people who aren't concerned about the color. So [while] I say thank you to that... I also say it's time for my culture to wake up and to become involved."

Currently in Congress, every member of the Congressional Black Caucus identifies himself or herself as "pro-choice." Elliott laments that fact.

Elliott, who is a minister, author, and conference speaker, says she is devoted to helping men and women in becoming who God created them to become. "We are the head of every criminal activity. We have more babies die from [Sudden Infant Death Syndrome] -- there's something wrong," says the ministry leader. "And I believe the something that's wrong is we've moved away from our first love, which is Jesus Christ."

--Dr. Peggy Elliot on Genocide Within the African-American Community

Can anyone answer me why the Congressional Black Caucus and the NAACP are more concerned with promoting the Democrat platform to the expense of the needs of their own people? Are they blinded to what's happening within their own community and culture by a granted role and promise of power? Why doesn't the African-American community itself (not it's so-called leaders) see what is being done to them? Is it a spiritual fault within the community or is the fault of governmental interference?

What is it about liberal policy positions that make otherwise bright-minded individuals stumble about in the dark? Do they prefer the darkness I would characterize as an institutionalized 'lack of personal responsibility' offered them in place of the light of truth-- a scales falling from the eyes' kind of understanding?

Do some liberal policies, however well-meaning, promote the abandonment of deeper spiritual truths? How do conservative policies compare? Is there a moral difference between the two camps stated and defended general policies?

If genuine truth is the desired outcome of any public discussion, which side, conservative, liberal, (or neither), is closer to that 'scales falling from the eyes' variety?


Promote the general welfare...

What does it mean?

Here's what various places on the web (with no effort to pick and choose on my part) have to say:


"Welfare" means health, happiness, prosperity or well-being.

The US Supreme Court has ruled that nothing in the preamble grants legislative power.

"Welfare" should not be read in isolation, but as a part of the whole preamble - the idea of the preamble is simply that the founders of our nation think that the proposed system of governance would naturally result in the items listed in the preamble. Be very cautious to not confuse result and causation.

"General welfare" is one of the ostensible results of our system of governance.

Turning the tables around and saying that "general welfare" is a legislative goal is entirely corrupt and against what the founders were saying.

The founders defined "welfare" as a result - a natural consequence. Those who would incorrectly have you believe that it is a legislative objective try to rewrite history by making a consequential result into an active cause.

The Preamble declares that: "We the People of the United States .... do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America." The meaning is clear that all authority originates from the People.

The meaning of the word Welfare in the Constitution is different from its current usage. The constitutional meaning of welfare is: 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [ME wel faren, to fare well]

Welfare in today's context also means organized efforts on the part of public or private organizations to benefit the poor, or simply public assistance. This is not the meaning of the word as used in the Constitution.

When the Founding Fathers said that “WE THE PEOPLE” established the Constitution to “promote the general Welfare,” they did not mean the federal government would have the power to aid education, build roads, and subsidize business. Likewise, Article 1, Section 8 did not give Congress the right to use tax money for whatever social and economic programs Congress might think would be good for the “general welfare.”

James Madison stated that the “general welfare” clause was not intended to give Congress an open hand “to exercise every power which may be alleged to be necessary for the common defense or general welfare.” If by the “general welfare,” the Founding Fathers had meant any and all social, economic, or educational programs Congress wanted to create, there would have been no reason to list specific powers of Congress such as establishing courts and maintaining the armed forces. Those powers would simply have been included in one all-encompassing phrase, to “promote the general welfare.”

John Quincy Adams, sixth President of the United States, once observed: “Our Constitution professedly rests upon the good sense and attachment of the people. This basis, weak as it may appear, has not yet been found to fail.”

It is NOT the government’s business (constitutionally) to “help” individuals in financial difficulty. Once they undertake to provide those kinds of services, they must do so with limited resources, meaning that some discriminating guidelines must be imposed. (so many who need that kind of help- so little resources to provide it.)

The Founding Fathers said in the preamble that one reason for establishing the Constitution was to “promote the general welfare.” What they meant was that the Constitution and powers granted to the federal government were not to favor special interest groups or particular classes of people. There were to be no privileged individuals or groups in society. Neither minorities nor the majority was to be favored. Rather, the Constitution would promote the “general welfare” by ensuring a free society where free, self-responsible individuals - rich and poor, bankers and shopkeepers, employers and employees, farmers and blacksmiths - would enjoy “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness,” rights expressed in the Declaration of Independence.

Quoting the Tenth Amendment, Jefferson wrote: “I consider the foundation of the Constitution as laid on this ground: That ‘all powers not delegated to the United States, by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States or to the people.’ To take a single step beyond the boundaries thus specially drawn around the powers of Congress is to take possession of a boundless field of power, no longer susceptible of any definition.”

Writing about the “general welfare” clause in 1791, Thomas Jefferson saw the danger of misinterpreting the Constitution. The danger in the hands of Senators and Congressmen was “that of instituting a Congress with power to do whatever would be for the good of the United States; and, as they would be the sole judges of the good or evil, it would be also a power to do whatever evil they please.” Unlike public officials during Jefferson’s time, our modern-day legislators have a very loose interpretation of the Constitution. The result is that government has mushroomed into a monolithic bureaucracy.

Once the government opens its arms (and bank accounts), it divides the citizens into two groups: those who receive direct (personal, individual) benefit from the government, and those who do not.

There are, I know, other sites with far different takes. Seems to me, however, that this much is true: The Preamble gives an overview of what the Constitution, as an outline of rights, and sundry duties granted to the states and federal government, ultimately amounts to for the United States of America. As such, it further makes sense that the Preamble does not contain any legislative mandates to either the States or the Federal government. The 10th amendment therefore defines what is and is not allowed to the federal government. The commerce clause is a bit murkier, and has grown murkier since it's inclusion.

Another thing. It should be undeniable that the meaning of words change over time-- 'Queer' used to mean 'strange.' 'Gay' used to mean 'happy.' What did the words 'general welfare' mean in context of 17th century understanding? I can tell you what it didn't mean. What it didn't mean was near half the populace on the public dole, in some form or fashion. The meaning and expected performance of our Constitution has been bastardized over long decades of misinterpretation (intentional or ignorantly, makes no difference), however well-meaning by men and women on both sides of the aisle. We are in this mess because of discretionary and entitlement spending... areas in our budget this president is ignoring in his non-budget fix.


There IS No Plan!

>> Thursday, April 14, 2011

The New CivilityHe punted. Biden slept.

I can't take this shit-for-brains president seriously.

Where's the plan? All he did was give a speech. And a partisan, 'hey! I'm back on the campaign trail,' one at that! His plan, from all I've heard, doesn't even exist on paper... yet. Ryan's budget is real. Obama's is a phantom, a hat trick. It raises the deficit by twelve trillion in spite of it's 4 trillion in cuts?


This man is supposed to be smart! That's what they all tell us. But I see no evidence of it. What I do see is the worst president in American history. The biggest liar. A racist. And a man with a lot to hide.

At the risk of sounding hyperbolic, if this man wins reelection, this country will cease to be the Land of the Free, and the Home of the Brave. America will be shat out the dark puckered hole of history, and Obama will have been the catalyst-- that final grunt and push, if you will --if not the direct cause. And I say, 'if not' because we too share culpability in this nation's coming demise. If we do not get a hold of our finances, cut spending, reform entitlements, and simplify as well as plug up the loops holes in the tax code the United States of America I grew up to respect and adore will be gone.

Obama is not so stupid he can't see this. He see's it, and doesn't care. It sickens me to know that this country has so successfully been undermined-- primarily by public education --that near half the nation would sooner drink piss and eat shit rather than vote this buffoon out of office.

This is one reason senators make poor presidents! What is wrong with America if it thinks a man with less than 60 days in-house experience in the Senate prior to declaring his candidacy has what it takes to run this nation? Is America so F\[*ed in the head stupid that this sounded like a good idea?

I firmly believe that Obama will be remembered-- assuming there is an America TO remember --as the worst president in American history.

I'm too angry right now to be rational. So take this post for what it is... the rantings of an extremely pissed conservative who has been slapped in the face by president Obama one too many times.



>> Sunday, April 10, 2011

Read this article.

This is the audiotape to which the article refers:

I leave this here without comment for the readers. What do you think?


A Headline & Righteous Anger, and Indignation

>> Friday, April 8, 2011

President Obama to Enslave US Military in Order to Protect Abortion Funding
Planned Parenthood protected. Armed Forces go unpaid.

"Jesse Jackson says the government shutdown would be a return to the Civil War. If today's troops still engage in battle -- if they go to war and execute the orders -- but are not paid by their commander-in-chief, are they his slaves? It sure sounds like Obama has more in common with President Jefferson Davis than he does with President Lincoln."


"What's a few dead babies between friends? President Obama has no problem ordering a moratorium on drilling for oil, but he will not support a moratorium on drilling for babies."

--Rush, April 8, 2011

The best way to beat Liberals, in ANY election, is to play them at their own game. Hit first, hit hard, do not ease your attack, keep them on the defensive, give them no opportunity to establish a beach head. In other words, Alinsky rule no. 13

"Identify, isolate, freeze and escalate."

Prime example. When Boener and Reid appear at a microphone together Boener should make it clear, in no uncertain terms, that we are in this position because democrats; Reid, Pelosi, AND president Obama failed to provide or pass a budget for two years. Call them out every time they attempt to blame a stiff-necked GOP by pointing out, repeatedly, in the microphone, at every opportunity, that Democrats have failed to do their job; that all their tears spill from crocodile eyes; for if they truly cared about their precious government and the people it purports to help they would have ensured it was funded when it was their job to do so.

Democrats are not interested in returning to fiscal sanity. All they want to do is spend. And tax. They have no desire to cut. They want everyone on some form of government assistance. They want a populace enslaved by government, for the purpose of empowering government, to the detriment of the very people the government is supposed to protect. Democrats are pushing a fascist ideological world-view; they are not interested in personal responsibility, for themselves especially. They view the American people as piggy-banks to be upended and shook till every last penny spills from their pockets. They will not be happy until everyone is miserable. Except for themselves, of course. Didn't Orwell kind of presage this day at the end of Animal Farm? I think he did!

The more I hear them bemoaning the shutdown of this, that or the other, I can only think that this was deliberate on their part. They wanted a shutdown, this year, because they believe that, just like the shutdowns in 1994-5, the GOP will be blamed. And if this is what they have really done; that they really planned this crisis for just this reason, they don't deserve to be in office. They don't deserve to be called American. Not one single conservative or member of the GOP should feel the slightest compunction toward civility with democrats. If they are deliberately spending this nation into insolvency and collapse while cynically staging a shutdown scenario to blame their opponents, the fires of hell are not hot enough for this collection of rat dropping we "affectionately" call democrats. If the democratic leadership has actually done this on purpose, the gloves are off! It's time to blacken their eyes, kick them in the proverbial nuts, and kick and spit on them while they're down. They'll deserve nothing better. I'm talking destruction here. I mean utterly destroy them. Not physically, mind you, but politically, financially, personally. Give them nothing to turn to but God... where they can beg forgiveness and a reprieve from the Hell they so richly deserve.

For the record, I do not believe the GOP will take the fall for this. The American people know where the blame lies, even if democrats do not. Every time they open their misbegotten pie-holes I have to fight the urge to puke. And there's nothing I hate worse than puking...


Obama - Lost in the Grass.

>> Tuesday, April 5, 2011

Why Hillary Clinton must run in 2012
--John Phillips, Los Angeles Times

Hillary voters weren't swooned by Obama in the 2008 Democratic primaries and many are abandoning him in public opinion surveys today. But are they mad enough to ride the elephant in 2012?

Get out the saddle, because that's exactly what they did in 2010.

In the midterm elections, while it's true the Democrats were routed everywhere, they got especially creamed in states where Hillary did well. In House races, the Democrats lost four seats in Florida, six in New York, five in Ohio, four in Pennsylvania and three in Texas –- all states Hillary carried in the 2008 Democratic primaries.

Meanwhile, the Democrats strengthened their hand in places that went heavily for Obama in 2008 –- with pickups in Hawaii, Delaware and the MSNBC prime-time lineup.

The lesson: Hillary voters aren't only willing to pull the plug on their fellow Democrats -– they're willing to yank it like they're starting a lawn mower.

I would love to see hillary pushing that mower.


The Emperors New Clothes

It's all about appearances...

...cause there certainly isn't any substance to liberal fear-mongering.


The Nebulous Interests & Values of Barack Obama

>> Friday, April 1, 2011

From today's edition of the Patriot Post...

Much Nothing About Ado
--Friday, April 1, 2011

We didn't think it possible for a president to present a nationally televised speech on a "kinetic military action" for roughly half an hour and say virtually nothing, but we were wrong. Late to decide on a course of action at all, Barack Obama's address to America on his nine-day-old decision to impose a no-fly zone over Libya was likewise late-to-need. The empty prattle had no substance so the speech would have been equally effective had Mr. Nobel-Peace-Prize-Winner given it on the same day he ordered all those "peaceful" bombs to rain down on Libyan heads.

Timely or not, we still would have liked to hear several statements that weren't included in the president's used-car pitch. Among these was an explanation for why the president didn't ask Congress for approval before giving the go-ahead order to bomb Libya -- a nation posing no imminent danger to the U.S. It also would have been nice to hear exactly what America's vital national interests are in Libya. If the answer -- as some left-pundits have posited -- is, "It's the oil, stupid," then let's hear that from the president.

Instead, Obama declared, "Mindful of the risks and costs of military action, we are naturally reluctant to use force to solve the world's many challenges. But when our interests and values are at stake, we have a responsibility to act." He took "time-limited, scope-limited" military action over "values"? Truly progressive

Read it all here

And no, Jim... president Obama did not consult Congress prior to engaging Libyan airspace with a barrage of tomahawks, and air-support for the Libyan rebels, some of whom are members of al-Qaeda.

Here's some more idiocy from the Left, courtesy of Matt Lauer... what a doofus!


Barry Obama : The Young Turk

Young Turk:
Date: 1908
Function: noun
Etymology: Young Turks, a 20th century revolutionary party in Turkey
:an insurgent or a member of an insurgent group especially in a political party : radical; broadly
:one advocating changes within a usually established group.

Photos: 1980 Taken by, Lisa Jack / M+B Gallery


"House Negro" "No One Messes with Joe" "O" "The One" 08-Election 1984 2009 Inaugural 2012 Election 9/11 abortion abortionists Air Obama Al Franken Al Gore Al-Qaeda American Youth Americarcare Assassination Scenario Atheism Barry O Bi-Partisanship Biden Billary Birth Certificate Border Security Bush Bush Legacy Change Change-NOT child-killers Christians Christmas Civilian Defense Force Clinton Code Pink Congress Conservatism Constitution Creation Darwin Del McCoury Democrat Hypocrisy Democrats Dick Morris Dr. Tiller Dubya Earth Day Elian Gonzalez Ends Justify Means Evil Evolution Evolution-Devolution Failure in Chief Fairness Doctrine Feodork Foreign Relations Free Speech Frogs Fuck America - Obama Has Gates George Orwell Gestapo Global Cooling Global Idiots Global Warmong God GOP Descent Graphic Design Great American Tea Party Gun-Control Guns hackers Harry Reid hate haters Heath Care Heretic Hillary Howard Dean Hussein ident in History identity theft Illegal Immigration Iraq Jackboots Jesus Jihadist-Lover Jimmy Carter Joe Biden Jon Stewart Kanye West Karl Rove Katrina Las Vegas Left-Wing Media Leftists Liar Liberal Media liberal tactics Liberals Liberty Lying Media Marriage Penalty Martyr Marxism McCain Media MSNBC/Obama Administration murderers Norm Coleman Obama Obama 2012 Obama Administration Obama Dicatorship Obama Lies Obama Wars Obama's Army Obamacare Obamists Olympia Snowe Partisanship perversion Piracy Police State Political Hell Political Left Populist Rage Pragmatist Prayer Proof of Citizenship Proposition 8 Racism Regime Change Revolution Ronald Reagan Rush Limbaugh Second Amendment Separation of Powers Slavery Socialist Government Tea-Bagging Tea-Parties terrorists The Raw Deal Thuggery Tom Tancredo Traitors War Criminal War on Weather War-Crimes Worst President in History

  © Blogger template Werd by 2009

Back to TOP