DOUGLAS V. GIBBS             RADIO             BOOKS             CONSTITUTION             CONTACT/FOLLOW             DONATE

Saturday, January 31, 2009

Gateway Pundit Nails It With This One:

From Gateway Pundit. . .

It's a Recession... Congress Gives Lawmakers $93,000 More to Spend (Video)
Beautiful. At the same time that President Obama is wagging his finger at Wall Street for their year end bonuses and auto executives are being harassed for flying on private jets, the Democratic-led congress just gave each lawmaker an extra $93,000 in petty cash to spend.

They say they need it to help their constituents and to help the economy.

After all, it takes a lot of money to spend other people's money:

Video from Bulls and Bears.

You just can't make this stuff up.

Related... President Obama wants to spend a trillion dollars on welfare, condoms, international STD prevention, 600,000 new government jobs and handouts for illegal immigrants... But, has issued a demand to the Pentagon to reduce its budget by more than 10%. The dollar figure is $55 billion.

Pro-Obama Vandalism

This morning my wife and I departed on a trip down memory lane. I grew up in the Los Angeles area, and my father owned a fish and tackle shop, a restaurant, and two whale-watch boats at Berth 55 (a.k.a. Queens Wharf). I spent a lot of time at that fish and tackle shop playing the "Chicago" Pin Ball machine, eating a lot of fish and shrimp at the restaurant, and going out on ocean trips as tourists gathered around hoping for a brief glimpse of a whale surfacing near the boats. Sometimes, too, we went out on other boats to go deep sea fishing, more often than not with big names in the sports fishing world.

Now, after 35 years has passed, I decided it would be fun to go back to the old berth and see if the buildings remained intact.

The fish and tackle shop is now divided in half. Half is a smaller fishing shop, and the other half of the building is a fish market. The restaurant has a bar, and is an extension of the fish market where, if you order food at the market, after it is prepared you can take it over to the restaurant to eat it.

It is nothing like the highly efficient, popular night spot that the restaurant was when my father owned the place.

We drove around the piers, checked out Queen Mary Way, and finally made our way back up the freeway, and headed home. On the way home we stopped in the city of Corona, which is where as a kid my folks (mom and step-dad) moved to once they finally decided it was time to get away from the Los Angeles headaches, to pick up some sodas and other items in preparation for tomorrow's big football game. I usually have gatherings of local acquaintances for the big game, and tomorrow will not be much different.

After shopping, as we approached my truck, I immediately noticed that someone (and this isn't the first time) had vandalized the bumpersticker in my back window.

The bumper sticker says "NOBAMA" with the NO in red, the BAMA in white, and a very dark blue background.

Someone had taken a black marker to the bumper sticker and blacked out the N and the slash that crosses the center of the O. Now the sticker simply says OBAMA with a red O.

This vandalism of anything anti-Obama is a common occurrence among those that I have talked to, and I am not just talking about here in Southern California. This is something that is a problem across the nation. However, of my many liberal acquaintances, aside form Ballbuster (of which I don't believe what he says half the time anyway), this is not a common occurrence among those that have pro-Obama signs and stickers.

The same kind of vandalism was happening with anything in support of Proposition 8 (supporting fundamental marriage) I had as well. My "Yes on 8" signs were removed from my yard regularly, more often than not during the light of day. I was assaulted for having a "Yes on 8" sticker on my big rig (assaulted from a distance, anyway - the coward threw something at me and it hit me on the side of the head - called me a f***ing bigot as he drove by).

I am willing to bet the No on 8 crowd didn't have nearly as many instances of this kind of vandalism or attacks.

I am not saying that all people that agree with Conservatism are not capable of these idiotic kinds of actions - I am saying that these kinds of attacks and vandalism are more prevailent among liberals. But then again, what did I expect from a group that proclaims that moral standards are outdated, and that relativism and pluralism is the way to go?

As with what I have said in the past about extreme measures regarding sex appeal, this is a symptom of abandoned morals. I understand these people disagree with me, but does that give them a right to walk up to my personal property and vandalize it? I wouldn't do that to them. My principles and self-respect would never allow it.

And if these are the kind of people that support the president, it gives me large doubts about the stability of our society, and the moral standards (or lack thereof) people practice.

Michael Steele elected new RNC Chairman

Friday, January 30, 2009

Ledbetter Fairpay Act and the Rules of the Game

The liberal mindset is a fascinating one. Through the e-mails I get, comments, and exposure to there idiocy in the media, the rules of the game of politics are that the left makes the rules, whether you like it or not.

Using their line of thinking, if you argue against environmentalists, then you must not care about the environment. If you are against entitlement programs because you believe that such programs create an environment of dependency on the government, then you must believe that all poor people are lazy. If you believe something may possibly have some validity, such as the Obama Birth Certificate controversy, then that means you are in full agreement with anything and everything anyone says supporting that particular theory. If you claim to be pro-life, then you must believe that any woman that has an abortion should be jailed - and if you think there is anytime at any point before a child is born that justifies terminating a pregnancy, that automatically makes you pro-choice. If you voted against Obama, you are racist. If you support Israel you support the death of children. If you support the war in Iraq you are a baby killer (and you are being called this by people that support abortion all the way up to full term - go figure).

The latest attack, and I received a lot on this one after last night's video of McClintock's argument on the floor of The House, is that if you are against the Fairpay Act (a.k.a. the Ledbetter Act), you are against women being paid equally for equal work.

Like the examples above, this kind of thinking is narrow and idiotic, and is really only an attempt of doing what Liberals do best - try to discredit the Conservative with ridiculous, unresearched, stereotypical assumptions.

The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act is a bill that would enable discrimination lawsuits to proceed long after the alleged discrimination took place. In other words, the statute of limitations on these kinds of claims would be eliminated. Though it is assumed it will give women a better opportunity to pursue their cases, such limitations are vital to our justice system functioning properly, and the elimination of such will place our judicial system at a severe disadvantage. Surely, there are cases of merit that never are tried because the statute of limitations was exceeded, but more often than not these cases are the exception, rather than the rule. Limitations, however, are in place for more important reasons, including, but not limited to, stopping suits using evidence that is stale, prevent the destruction of defensive evidence, stop running up damages, and to quickly resolve the claims before the evidence, or memories of those involved, become faded or expired with time. The Ledbetter Act, by eliminating time limitations as this bill suggests, will create more harm than any good.

As we have talked about in the past regarding taxation of businesses, businesses see any costs (or potential costs) as a loss, and make moves to cover such losses. For example, an increase tax is an increased cost, and to compensate the business owner will reduce costs elsewhere to cover for such a cost increase. This may be done by using less expensive ingredients or components in the products, which usually also compromises the quality of the product. Or they will raise the prices of the products. Often, to cover such increases in costs they lay off personnel. Sometimes they even resort to moving their business to a less costly location, and if that means taking their business out of the country, they will do so.

With the Ledbetter Act, lawsuits would become more prevalent. The business will be afraid of doing anything that may be construed as being in violation of the act, so, employers will, as a result, reduce wages, decrease the number of people they employ, and change their business operations in the interest of avoiding lawsuits. In the long run, the very people that this bill is suppose to be helping will be hurt because the businesses will avoid hiring people that may sue them, thus reducing their legal risk - and if doing so means having less employees, they will do so.

I feel for people who believe they receive poor performance evaluations, and/or lower pay because of their gender or race. Bad business practices by employers sometimes surface, and if the motivation was in fact sexism or racism, punitive legal action may be the way to ensure the company, and others like it, don't do such things in the future.

However, like the Affirmative Action laws, mandates like the Ledbetter act cause more harm than good.

Eliminating limitations could have catastrophic results on our judicial system. They are in place to eliminate cases with stale demands in which the details may have been forgotten, or the evidence is out-dated, thus opening the door for assumptions and testimony that may not be fully accurate due to the lapse of time. Over time evidence may be lost or discarded, witnesses may not be available, or may die. Determining the exact intentions, motivations, or other subtleties of the relationships of those involved. After too much time has passed, these situations also places the attempt to get to the truth at a disadvantage. Statutes of limitations enable cases to be heard while the evidence is still fresh, and the defendants still have a fair opportunity to gather all of the evidence they may require in order to mount a legitimate defense. In short, time limitations prevent fraudulent claims and cases with faulty evidence or testimony as a result of too much time passing.

Also, by a case being brought up sooner, rather than later, other persons that may have been wronged by the defendant, by seeing the case while the evidence is still fresh, may have incentive to pursue their own cases, or if they believe the defendant is innocent, document and challenge the case in a timely fashion.

Limiting the time with statutes of limitations also protect defendants from long thought out strategies by the plaintiff. An example of this would be plaintiffs waiting for evidence to disappear, or memories to fade, before pursuing the case, so that they have a better advantage.

By not allowing cases to come to court after too long of a time period to pass the courts are essentially ensuring that the cases have more certainty and stability. Time limitations, in the long run, protect both the plaintiff and the defendant, and help maintain credibility in the system.

Because some cases of merit are not heard because of the expiration of the statute of limitations, it does not create the necessity to change the operation of law, and open Pandora's Box for greater injustices.

The Ledbetter Act is not about equal pay for women, it is about putting business at a disadvantage. After all, isn't that what we always hear from the left? Businesses are the enemy?

This is not to say that all businesses are innocent, or do not participate in gender-based discrimination. Pay discrimination is wrong if the motive is in fact based on factors beyond an individuals ability to perform their duties. But because a few businesses find a way to get away with it, we should not open the flood gates and allow employees to sue at any time after the supposed discrimination occurred. Such an action opens the door for fraud and injustice. Then, as the cases continue to increase, as stated earlier, employers will change their hiring and wage practices to protect themselves - and the very people the law is designed to protect will be hurt because the opportunities for employment will dry up.

But the rules of the game with liberals is not to take any of the legal ramifications into consideration. By being against the Ledbetter Act, in their eyes, you are against fair pay for women.

Thursday, January 29, 2009

Newt Gingrich: The economic stimulus bill harms young Americans, harms America



And McClintock's Opinion regarding S.181 - Lilly Ledbetter Salary Act:



And Glenn Beck asks, How Much Money Are We Printing?

Wednesday, January 28, 2009

Obama, Lies, and Hypocrisy - Both Ways Barack

Three weeks ago Barack Obama proclaimed that America's economic ills can only be fixed by government. Government must act. Government is the only answer.

Today, however, suddenly Obama changed his tune. In fact, he sounded Reaganesque. He stood at a podium with two CEOs (Honeywell and IBM) present, and proclaimed: "The answer to our economic troubles rests less in my hands or on the hands of our legislators than it does the workers and the businesses that employ them."

Wait a second. I thought three weeks ago he said only government can save us. Suddenly, when it looks like his plan may not be adored by all, and in front of a couple CEOs, he suddenly sounds like a conservative? Suddenly government is not the answer?

Believe me, it is a dog and pony show. Obama is a radical, far left socialist, and his big government plans came out of his mouth three weeks ago - but he likes to try to make everyone like him, so he plays word games in his three ring circus of lies. He's not contradicting himself when he said he thought our economic troubles were out of his and the legislators hands. He was straight out lying.

Hold on to your wallets because not only was he lying, but if you take a close look at his stimulus plan, it is chock full of pork (ooops, wasn't this the guy that said he would not allow pork?). More lies. More hypocrisy.

Yeah, he's giving us change, all right. He has changed politics from being mostly lies and hypocrisy to complete lies and hypocrisy.

Hey, liberals, are you still hoping for his kind of change? Don't worry, the lies will keep coming, and the taxes for all of you will eventually rise - he only proclaimed tax cuts to get elected because he knows conservative ideas win elections (besides, they aren't really tax cuts - how can they be when most of the tax cuts are checks to people that don't even pay taxes in the first place?). Big government will crush this economy, and it will take fiscal conservatism to pull us out of this mess that Obama is exacerbating with his idiotic socialistic programs and plans - not to mention the ballooning national debt, and the out of control pork spending we will see over the next four years.

Love or Hate? The burning house of the gay behavioral fetish.

I saw a bumper sticker the other day on the road while driving my big rig on the Southern California freeways, and it read, "Stop The Hate, Repeal 8." The bumper sticker was referencing Proposition 8, which, Constitutionally defines marriage as between a man and a woman in California. In plain language, what it was saying is that anyone that believes the definition of marriage should be between a man and a woman is guilty of "hate." Specifically, it is somehow "hate" against people who exhibit the homosexual behavioral fetish whenever anyone has an opinion and disagrees with that lifestyle.

That's not hate. Where these people get "hate" from, out of that, I don't know.

Well, actually, I think I do know where they get it from, but convincing someone that what they are doing is wrong, in this case, to them, is "hate."

For those that believe that the gay lifestyle is immoral behavior, in the eyes of the gay agenda, are wrong for believing that homosexuality is wrong. The gays, in the hopes of justifying their fetish, are trying to convince everyone that their behavior is a genetically affected behavior, and that it is somehow normal for them to feel the way they do. They are trying to equate this with someone having red hair, or being born with freckles, or with being of a particular race, or what not.

When it comes to "hate," "hate" is a very strong word. It is being thrown around loosely, like many other words, in the hopes of getting enough people so afraid of being accused of being haters that they just say, "ah, okay, you can have your queer intrusion on the sanctity of marriage." But really, the meaning of the word "hate" is being diluted.

Also, I don't see how warning someone that they are participating in a dangerous behavior is "hate." In reality, I see that as "love."

If I had a friend, or family member, that was a drug addict, for example, and I produced a warning that essentially said, "Your behavior is dangerous to yourself, to those around you, and to society as a whole," I am not "hating" that person. I am warning them out of love. I am letting them know from my heart.

Now we have people who engage in dangerous sexual behavior, and lifestyles, who are saying that by you warning them about their behavior, by you telling them that the death rate among homosexuals is higher than that of the death rate of heterosexuals, by you saying that the likelihood that they will attract sexually transmitted diseases, such as AIDS, rises due to their behavior, by your claim that the damage to their body due to their behavior increases, by you telling them that their lifestyle in reality is counter-productive to society, and sends a bad signal to our children, especially for those of us that disagree with that lifestyle, and would like, instead, to teach our children that homosexuality is an unsafe lifestyle, not even to mention how this deteriorates the standards of right and wrong, which is now beginning to affect morality all across the spectrum - they are saying that you are putting out hate. That is not hate. That is love.

I don't wish that homosexuals should die. I don't wish that they should have a separation from God. But I do recognize that their activities and behavioral fetish will do exactly those things, and more.

They are essentially in a burning house, I am trying to warn them that their house is burning to the ground, and they need to take action to escape the burning house and save themselves, and they are calling me a "hater" as I run to get the hose to help them extinguish the flames.

I have never understood that mentality, and in my love, I am sorry to see that it is that way.

Tuesday, January 27, 2009

The Fallacy of Building The Economy From The Bottom Up

During his presidential campaign Obama stated that he wants to build the economy from the bottom up. Provide money to the poorest, I suppose, so that they can spend the money, and then as they buy goods it will somehow encourage businesses to produce more goods, and so on and so forth.

Since when does the bottom create jobs and produce goods?

Simple fact is that the creation of jobs and products comes from businesses, not from the bottom income earners. And the people who own businesses are in business to make a profit. That's the whole point of having a business, isn't it?

Profit increases with the success of a business, so business owners, in search of increased profit, will do what they can to ensure their business is successful. After all, the whole point of getting the better jobs, or having a business, is to live better, and living more comfortably goes hand in hand with an increased profit margin.

Obama wishes to deter our business owners from that kind of success. He wishes to hammer success more heavily with taxes - taxes that he will then use to try to pay for his expanding government programs, and from which he will dribble some change down to the people at the bottom hoping that it will grow the economy from the bottom up.

During the immaculate campaign, Obama promised tax cuts for the middle class, and everyone with income levels lower than the middle class as well (most of whom, when it comes to the lower end of the spectrum, don't even pay taxes - so really, for them it is not a tax cut, but another government check to go along with their welfare checks). But why does he want those folks to have that money? Why does he want to issue a check to people who don't even pay taxes? How is that a tax cut, and what does he think those people will do with those funds that he gave to them freely by taking it from the higher earners, and stupidly printing more money?

The theory is that they will buy products, which will then theoretically put people to work to produce more products, and so forth.

People, however, don't live like that. They live to their means. They buy everything on credit, sort of like the government does. So I am willing to bet you that what is going to happen when everyone receives their Obama Stimulus Checks from the IRS is that they are not going to go running down to their local Wal-Mart, or their local electronics store, and start gleefully buying things they had no interest in buying in the first place. They are going to apply those funds to their credit cards to pay down the balances, or they are going to pay down their furniture loan, or pay down their car loan, or pay down their mortgage line of credit, or they may just simply stick the extra money underneath their mattress and save it for a rainy day.

You don't create jobs from the bottom up. You create jobs by encouraging the people who create jobs to do so. And you don't encourage them with a whopping $3,000 rebate, either. Creating a job costs a lot more than that, and is not worth doing for a measly few thousand government bucks.

To create a job the employer must see it as something that will enable them to make more profit. Creating a position for an employee is an expense, and a very hefty one, at that. There are social security taxes, unemployment taxes, worker's compensation insurance payments, disability tax, health care costs, the cost of wages, the cost of the station this person will work at, and the cost of the equipment the person is going to use. A twenty or thirty thousand dollars a year employee is going to cost the company something more like $75,000 a year. So there has to be a profit incentive - and the profit incentive must be large enough to make creating the position worth it. One of the factors that will create a profit incentive is a movement of products that increases to the point that the employer must increase manpower to keep pace. But how do the products start moving?

The company is not going to just suddenly decide to start moving products without the promise of increased profits. A demand for the products must take place, and a bunch of people at the bottom paying their credit down and stuffing their money in mattresses, and not willing to buy products they cannot normally afford anyway, is not going to create that kind of demand. There has to be money freed up across the board to do this. The companies have to be willing to increase supply in the hopes people will buy, and they will need additional funds to produce more products. Then, when the supply goes up, the price will come down, which will entice more people to buy the products being offered.

But how will the buyers (from all income levels) be willing to buy more products, and what will free up more money for businesses so that they have the increased funds to produce more goods?

Tax breaks in the form of true tax cuts. If an owner has a tax cut they are going to reinvest it into their business with the hopes of increasing profit. Profits increase, remember, when their businesses grow. And if you raise their taxes, and increase regulations, as Obama is proposing, the opposite is true. They will see it as an increase in overhead, and they've got to cover for it, so they will increase the price of the products, use cheaper materials which comprises the quality of the product, and they lay off employees. And if the government intrusions become too steep, as the taxes and fees become too harsh and more burdensome, the business owners will just pack up and take their businesses out of the country where they feel they can make more profit.

That is what is going to happen if Obama's plans come into play, and that is dangerous for our economy.

And there is one more thing to think about. Do you think that Obama has taken into consideration the onslaught of bankruptcies that are lingering on the horizon as a result of the failed mortgages and increase of unemployment? Or do you think he will still continue to hammer those that produce jobs and products while redistributing the money to people who will do nothing with it but store it like a squirrel hording nuts?

Monday, January 26, 2009

Obama, and his friends, not doing so well - Bad President, bad bad prez. . .

Timothy F. Geithner has been confirmed as Treasury Secretary - hmmm, just the guy we need to run the IRS. . . a guy known to run from the IRS, not pay his taxes, and then say, "Oops, my bad." Wow, Obama, you can sure pick 'em.

In typical, arrogant, liberal fashion, Blagojevich can't be bothered by a pesky impeachment trial - he's hitting the television interview circuit instead.

Obama's approval rating is at 68% after only a week in office. But wait, wasn't his approval rating 83% before he took office, while he was doing absolutely nothing? Heck, that is a 15% drop in only a week. He is only in office one week and the messiah's approval rating is plummeting! Just wait until his presidency really gets into swing, his new programs take hold of our economy, and everything goes to hell! Question is, when Obama starts screwing up the nation, will the media report it?

And speaking of arrogance, while bickering with a few Republicans, Obama reminded them, "I won." Yes, Obama, you did. I know that it is so unbelievable that the American people fell for your crap that even you don't believe it, but are you so entranced with yourself that you have to tell everyone you won? Or was it a statement of arrogance that was basically uttered as if to say, "Shut up, you lost, you're screwed, I'm gonna run this country into the ground if I like."

Finally, Obama seems to think that man-made Global Warming is real, despite the fact that the evidence concludes otherwise, as we experience one of the coldest winters on record, and after 650 scientists descended on the Poland Climate Change talks with the message that man-made Global Warming is a hoax. Do you think Obama will ever admit he's wrong? Of course not. Arrogant bastards like him just find a way to blame someone else. So reach deep in your pocket as his eco-plans move into play. And if the news that man-made Global Warming is a sham finally reaches Obama? Hey, Bush, guess what else is your fault!

Oh, and Mr. Obama, since you are placing so much importance on Global Warming, I thought you might want to know that it is last on the list of priorities according to the people.

In Search of . . . Hope and Change

Humans have the fundamental desire to search for hope and change. We always hope for a better life, a few more dollars, and a little more time. We hope our children’s lives will be a change for the better in comparison to our own. We pray that even in death our lives will continue on, but hope that our bodies and surroundings are a change from what we experience in the mortal world. We always hope for a change for the better.

People realize that humanity is a flawed animal. To achieve better lives, unfortunately, we are willing to do things at the expense of others. When we reach prosperity we feel guilty for the ones we bypassed on the way up. Our hope allowed for a change in our lives that others were unable to attain. So, burdened by our guilt, sometimes, we give to charities and organizations in the hopes that our guilt will somehow be lessened. But not all people agree that this is the way to give back, or that giving back is even necessary. Disagreements arise, and a degree of hysteria is born. “How dare those others blessed with exceptional circumstances reject giving back to the poor,” some may say. “How dare they not recognize, and try to somehow ease, their guilty consciences.”

The guilt and desire to ensure that everyone participates in creating a utopian system where nobody can possibly be left behind serves as a unifying concept. These groups demand that retribution be paid, that somehow their guilt be eased by government intervention. The law, at that point, ceases to apply. The intentions of doing what is good outweighs doing what is right. Well intentioned legislation, no matter how damaging to freedom and economies they may be, are enacted. The liberal-minded, at this point, hope for change that will enable everyone to be taken care of by the governmental body, no matter how many liberties they must forfeit.

Read the rest at American Daily Review. . .

Sunday, January 25, 2009

Democrats in their own words Covering up the Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac Scam that caused our Economic Crisis



In addition to the damning evidence against the Democrats in the video above, we must also remember that George W. Bush also saw this economic downturn coming. The Bush administration warned in the budget it issued in April 2001 that Fannie and Freddie were too large and overleveraged. Their eventual failure "could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting federally insured entities and economic activity" well beyond housing.

The housing bubble, that was doomed to eventually burst, was also partly created because of the Community Reinvestment Act, which had a partial hand in what transpired as well. The CRA demanded that banks make loans they would not normally have made otherwise, due to the risk factors of the borrowers. Of course, to argue that the CRA is the "complete" cause of the problem is irresponsible too. Many factors played a part in this debacle. But to claim the CRA had nothing to do with it is ignorant as well. Regardless of how much of a hand the CRA had in creating this crisis, no matter how you slice it, the CRA was definitely one of the hands in the cookie jar.

Unfortunately for him, President George W. Bush was in office when the crap hit the fan, so naturally the folks that listen to the agenda driven talking heads of the alpha-bet networks believe it is all Bush's fault - the Liberal Left has done a fine job pointing the evidence away from them - but the evidence is all around us, and with Obama, they plan to worsen the economic situation with their moronic liberal tactics.

It was liberal agendas and government intrusion that created this growing economic situation that is quickly moving towards a catastrophic recessionary period, and their answer is to inject more liberal philosophy and government manipulation into the crisis. That, my friends, is hardly hope and change. . . it is nothing more than the same old liberal idiocy damaging our economy and our political system.

Friday, January 23, 2009

Illegal Aliens Getting The Breaks over Americans at Universities

I recently drove by a Home Depot in L.A. and you have never seen so many illegal aliens, err, um, I mean undocumented workers, in your life standing along the sidewalk hoping for somebody to pick them up for some side job. As I drove my big rig by the sea of people I thought to myself, "Wow, and I thought there was a lot of them that hung out around the fuel stop in the Inland Empire, or on the corner near the Lowes in Southwest Riverside County near where I live."

The scene in Los Angeles brought to mind something I heard on, I think, The Mike Gallagher Show, talking about how illegal aliens get a bigger break, and lower tuition, along with more (and easier to obtain) loans, to attend a university, than does an American. Specifically, out of state Americans. Like, if say a person from Kentucky wanted to attend UCLA and an undocumented alien (can't say illegal, I might be called a racist or something), or their kids, the little aliens, let's say originally from Mexico (since the Mexican illegal alien is the most common we'll use them in this illustration) desires to go to UCLA as well, the tuition is going to be lower, and the loans are going to be easier to obtain for the Illegal Alien. After all, the person Kentucky will be penalized for being an out-of-state student (but out of country with no legal papers is fine?).

Now, why is it that someone who doesn't belong in this country in the first place has more opportunity than someone who is a citizen (in other words, someone who belongs here)?

What amazes me is the liberal left is supposed to be all about what is "fair." So tell me, liberal lefties, how is that disproportionate leanings toward illegals are fair? How is that appropriate to the American Citizen? How is that beneficial to a person born and raised here in the U.S.? What is the benefit of having a birthright? How is that fair to the American as compared to the illegal who lied and cheated to come into this country? The Illegal Alien is receiving a fairer shake to get into an American learning institution. I challenge any liberal to explain to me how that is the right thing to do.

Of course as liberal as the Universities are, perhaps they are doing this so that they can properly train these new, potential voters, in the way of the dark side . . . err, uh, I mean liberal left philosophies.

Democrats Push Tax Cuts Through Congress (or: when is a duck not a duck)

If it quacks like a duck, waddles like a duck, has webbed feet like a duck, and has a bill like a duck, it must be a duck. . . right?

President Obama's Stimulus Package, promising massive tax cuts, is being pushed through Congress despite heavy opposition by the Republicans.

Okay, let me get this straight. Democrats are desiring tax cuts, and Republicans are fighting against them? Am I in the Twilight Zone?

In all, Obama's Economic Measure costs $825 billion, which will no doubt grow to over a trillion buckaroos before it gets through Congress with this added, and that added, and pork galore at the buffet table.

$500 for workers, $1,000 for couples - refunded to you - even if you don't pay taxes.

Where I come from, that is not a tax cut. How can you cut the taxes of people that don't pay taxes? And if they are getting money back for taxes they didn't pay, then where is this money coming from? The wealthier Americans, of course. The plan is to soak the rich while handing out free money to the poor. Sounds more like an extension to Welfare, to me.

And if they hammer the rich and hand it out to everyone else, isn't that a redistribution of wealth? And that is supposed to create jobs? Last time I checked the folks receiving government checks each month with a dozen kids in a two bedroom house were not the ones creating jobs - it tends to be businesses that do that. You know, those enterprises that contribute to the Free Market owned by (uhem) wealthy folks?

Of course, the Democrats argue that the Republican proposals favor higher income individuals and couples who have benefited way too much from their tax cuts passed during the administration of President George W. Bush. We must stop them from making so much money, or at least keeping much of it, right? The American Dream must be punished - how dare those rick folks do so well - we'll teach them!

Yeah, paying over 90% of the overall taxes of this nation is way too unfair - let's soak them for 95% of the total taxes. That way, they are hit so hard by taxes they will lay off workers, cut production, and perhaps take their businesses out of the country to make up for the loss!

I hear moving businesses in South America, India, or China is lovely this time of year.

It is bad enough that entitlement program usage rises during economic downturns as it is, but now, it seems, the Obama Administration (and the happy, dancing, liberal Democrats) wish that everyone should wind up on these programs. Heck, soak the rich enough and even they may need food stamps too! Then the government can take over all of their wretched, American Dream building businesses, and wealth will no longer be determined by money, but by the size of the apartment the government assigns to you. Let's make everything fair by downsizing the wealthy and making them like everyone else - equally miserable!

Sound familiar? Can anyone say, The Soviet States of America?

They (The Libtarded Dems) call what is coming "Tax Breaks," but these so-called tax breaks are simply government checks being issued to people who will become even more dependent upon the government, and most of whom didn't pay what they are being refunded in the first place. And what is even more interesting, is suddenly deficit spending is a good thing, according to the Democrats. Talk about a duck not being a duck!

Weren't the Democrats the ones complaining about the National Debt over the last thirty years or so?

Yep, they accused Bush of being a big spender, and accused him of creating a bigger National Debt. But in the first 100 days of the Obama Presidency, BHO will prove to be a much bigger spender, and we will by then be deep into a recession that will worsen with each government program the Democrats pass.

And somehow, they will still blame it all on Bush.

Thursday, January 22, 2009

President Obama, Guantanamo Bay, Trials for Terrorists, and the Ultimate Shut Down

Under-Qualified President Obama made a campaign promise to have trials for the terrorists held at Guantanamo Bay, for much of the glee to the Democrats, and shut down the detention center at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba. In addition to that, they have proclaimed that all torture will cease, for America must be an example and not torture anyone. We have a very large reputation as a good nation to keep up. And President Barack Hussein Obama, in his first official act as president of the United States of America, after the Democrats worked so hard to grant trials to the terrorists through our federal court system, signed an executive order to suspend all trials against those poor people being held at that horrible terrorist detention center on Cuba.

Suspend? I wonder how his Democratic friends are reacting to this.

Apparently, the Democrats plan to introduce these terrorists into the American federal court system, extend Constitutional protections to these folks that are non-citizens (therefore the Constitution does not apply to them), and eventually enable them to be free so that they can return to their terrorist ways and kill more innocent people, most probably Jews and Americans.

But Obama suspended this action.

Oh, and all you liberals out there screaming Geneva Convention, as usual, are wrong again. The Geneva Convention applies to combatants wearing uniforms, serving the cause of a nation, and complying with the so-called rules of war - none of which these terrorists captured on the battlefield in the act of committing terror fall under.

And your precious savior, Barack Hussein Obama, suspended the trials you worked so hard for.

And think of this: Where are we going to put these prisoners should Gitmo Bay be closed? In the general population with American prisoners near neighborhoods? At military bases where their function is to train men and women, not to detain prisoners?

Oh, and don't get me wrong, Obama has every intention to enable the trials to ensue in the future. His hope is to bring these terrorists into the federal court system, but for some reason he wants time to think upon it. Perhaps he plans a big speech with a slow teleprompter that will be filled with so much B.S. rhetoric that even the folks that didn't vote for him will be glad to allow the trials.

The trials, or course, would be extremely dangerous for us as a nation because not only would they be essentially changing the acts of war by these enemy combatants to simply a criminal actions (talk about Change you can believe in), but it opens the door for the enemy to "play court" with our captured American military personnel in kangaroo courts that will be, of course, determined to make a mockery of the Americans in the public view.

As for the "torture" question? The Democrats proclaim that we must stop the torture at Gitmo. . . what torture? These detainees are living better than they did in their God-forsaken countries with plenty of food, clean water, and a place to sleep. The so-called torture of Water Boarding was used on three hardened al-Qaeda terrorists, and the information received from them probably saved thousands of lives. . . and Water Boarding is a method that simulates drowning, but never puts the prisoner in any real danger. However, the Islamic Jihadists don't use methods that "simulate" cutting off limbs or heads - they really do it, and in the most gruesome way. If you, the liberal nutcase, desire to yell at someone for being ridiculously insane, join us in our fight against the Islamic Terrorists. Don't get all excited about freeing them to kill again by closing the facility in Cuba so that they can find a way to return to terrorism.

Closing Guantanamo Bay and granting trials for the terrorists, caught in the act of terror on the battlefield, is stupid, and dangerous. When these people wind up killing Americans again, the blood will be on Obama's (and the rest of the idiot Democrat's) hands.

And these kinds of actions also send a message to the enemy that our new President is weak and willing to bend over backwards to make the enemy happy - because that is how they think.

We suffered no terrorist attacks after 9/11 during Bush's Presidency. If we suffer one under Obama, it will speak volumes.

Get a bunch of environmentalists together for the Inauguration of Obama. . .

And this happens:

Obama, Bush, and the Washington Cockroaches

I am not a Daily Show fan. Jon Stewart, the MTV refugee, landed this gig after Greg what's-his-name tried to hit it big on a bigger network with a late late late late show sometime after Dave and others, I think it was. But, every once in a while something funny, and essentially good, comes out of the bowels of the pit that is the Daily Show, and this is one of those moments:

Obama and the Democrats. . . Where is all that money for your plans and programs coming from?

Capital South has an idea. . .



(Click on the cartoon for the answer. . .

Wednesday, January 21, 2009

The Beautiful People


Whenever I perform work in the towns around Los Angeles, like North Hollywood, the land of the beautiful people never ceases to amaze me. I am an observant person, and I have to admit that the women in those upscale neighborhoods around L.A. are more often than not thin to the point that it looks sickly. They are like under-nourished waifs.

Now, I am not saying that a thin woman is a bad thing, or that people have to fit my perceived ideal body type. I am saying that a woman that is so thin that she looks malnourished can be a bad thing, and possibly even medically damaging.

I agree that it is their business. But when that many of them in these neighborhoods, and I mean a very large percentage of them, are that thin, it makes you wonder what the underlying cause may be.

Sometimes I wonder how they are even able to keep their pants up.

I am simply observing the world around me, and you can't miss the ridiculous standard our women seem to think they must maintain by being stick figures. It amazes me because that sickly look has become what the image of beauty is in certain circles.

The message to our children, of course, is a dangerous one. And why women in our society feel the need to be so thin in order to be "acceptable" in an age where the underlying attitude has been one of pluralism and "who cares what people think" poses a contradiction that boggles the mind.

Is it a symptom of scrambled standards and lost principles? Has the onslaught against values brought us to this? Could it be that the people in our society have become so narcissistic that they are willing to endanger themselves with unhealthy behaviors to accomplish whatever it is they think they must accomplish?

Tuesday, January 20, 2009

Obama Inauguration in the Classroom

I shuddered when I heard that the nutcakes were making a fuss over Obama's Swearing-in. Psychiatrists would be kept busy for years with these people.

No, I am not talking about the people that began singing, "Na na na na, na na na na, na na na, good-bye," to George W. Bush as his term approached its end at the beginning of the ceremony. Yes, that was extremely disrespectful and foolish, but we have come to expect such idiocy from the heartless beings that populate the liberal left.

And no, I am not referring to the racist remarks that come out of the mouths of people who suddenly find themselves in front of a camera, or call into talk shows, that claim any white person that did not vote for Obama made that decision because of the color of his skin (like callers on 97.1 FM Los Angeles) - although I do believe a significant number of people "did" vote for him for that very reason.

And no, I am not referring to Lowery's benediction that proclaimed "when black will not be asked to get in back, when brown can stick around ... when yellow will be mellow ... when the red man can get ahead, man; and when white will embrace what is right," as if being white means you don't do what' right, and we are somehow still in the 1960's when blacks rode the back of the bus.

I am referring to the moronic right-wing parents that kept their kids out of school, or were upset, because the public schools were showing the inauguration on television, and didn't even send home a parent's notification slip.

Yes, I am a conservative angry at members of The Right.

The argument regarding the schools showing Obama's Inauguration in the classroom erupted on local Los Angeles Radio stations, like John and Ken on KFI. Most of the argument stemmed around not wanting their children exposed to the "Obamagasm" going on, or the leftist activities in the audience.

I do agree that the media is biased, the schools are more or less liberal indoctrination centers, and Obama is a frightening far-left prospect for President of the United States. I also believe that the Public Schools have become nearly worthless, a large part because of the teacher's unions, and a large part because of the experimental methods of teaching and curriculum used. My children did much better during their years in private school, than during their years in the public school system.

Shielding children from the world, however, is not always the right answer when it comes to teaching them values and principles. Though I believe children are better off in principled environments, I also believe that when children are exposed to "other" opinions, it is necessary to allow such exposure with a glad heart, and then as a parent to be responsible enough to be involved in their lives, and be there to explain what it is they experienced.

I am sure the rhetoric in the classroom by the teachers was intolerable, and I know that the media coverage was ridiculously on the verge of becoming worship services of Obama. But regardless of all of that, an inaugeration is still a historic event, and as a student of history I believe that children must be exposed to historic events as they happen - and then have the event discussed with them by the parent later.

Those parents upset about the inauguration being shown in the classroom are well intentioned, I am sure, but well informed children (and adults) become well informed by observing the other side as well.

Monday, January 19, 2009

Bush Commutes Sentences for Ramos and Compean

In his final full day in office George W. Bush commuted the sentences for Border Patrol Agents Ramos and Compean. As a result, they will be released March 20 of this year. Ramos was originally sentenced to 11 years, and Compean was sentenced to 12 years. Read more at Fox News.

American Daily Review

A new web magazine for the world of politics (and other topics) has emerged, and I have been asked to be one of the deputy editors to the site. So, in addition to my writings here (and my various other sites around the web), you will also be able to read my commentary, and the commentary of other fantastic writers, on American Daily Review. Give it a visit.

Sunday, January 18, 2009

Tonight On Political Pistachio Radio: Obama Citizenship and Eligibility Questions Still Rage On, Inaugural Hypocrisy, Christianity Change With Society


Obama Inaugural Hypocrisy, Obama Citizenship Battle Rages, Watered Down Christianity

Date / Time: 1/18/2009 7:00 PM

Category: Politics Conservative

Call-in Number: (646) 652-2940

As the Obama Inauguration approaches, the hypocrisy surrounding the event and his administration is deafening. The Courts, Congress, and Occidental College are being served with a demand to produce records regarding Obama, and his eligibility to be President of the United States. Christianity, in today's society, is experiencing a watering down that has fundamental believers concerned - Are Americans beginning to pick and choose their theological views? Political Pistachio Revolution

Above the Law Obama

From My Good Friend, Jim Stewart:

FROM THE UNITED STATES FLAG CODE: “The flag should never have placed upon it, nor on any part of it, nor attached to it any mark, insignia, letter, word, figure, design, picture, or drawing of any nature.”



I guess if you are The One, the law doesn't apply to you or your disciples.

Barack Obama - More Terrorist Ties

Fox News reports that a Muslim scholar chosen by Obama to speak at his inaugural prayer service on Wednesday is Ingrid Mattson, President of the Islamic Society of North America, a group federal prosecutors claim has ties to terrorists.

In 2007, and more recently, court documents have been filed by federal prosecutors which links the Islamic Society of North America to Hamas, a terrorist organization.

The Islamic Society of North America describes itself as "the nation's largest mainstream Muslim community-based organization." The organization is currently battling a case that lists them as co-conspirators in the Dallas terrorism case against the Holy Land Foundation.

Saturday, January 17, 2009

Privilege of a Lifetime - The Presidency of George W. Bush

I am asked often my opinion of the Bush Presidency. Was it a success? Was it a failure? I suppose the answer is, "A little bit of both." Though I believe the man always did what he thought was right, and I agreed with much of what he did, there were also many things I disagreed with when it came to his presidency. If asked for a survey if I approved of his presidency, I would say, "Yes, but with an asterisk."

Inauguration Day on January 20th, 2001, launched the first presidential term of George W. Bush. Already Bush's presidency was mired with controversy. Only 39 days earlier was his win in the battle for the White House made certain by a Supreme Court decision. The decision came as a result of a close election bombarded by ballot re-counts, questionable election proceedings, and headline grabbing "hanging chads."

Inaugural protesters lined Pennsylvania Avenue during Bush's first swearing-in bearing signs of displeasure over the controversial Bush v. Gore ruling - accusing "W" of stealing the election, bearing phrases like "Hail to the Thief," and "Bush = Crook."

Bill Clinton held his farewell rally simultaneously at Andrews Air Force Base, forcing the media to split coverage between the two events, and draining much of the steam out of Bush's Inauguration.

Considering the happenings leading up to that day in January, 2001, and considering what was to come during the next eight years, it seems only appropriate that it was 35-degrees and raining during George W. Bush's first inauguration.

If life is a journey, and if the vessel for that journey is the numerous events we encounter, Bush's presidency was a hurricane navigated by a battered vessel in a storm rivaling Katrina.

From day one partisanship reigned. On that cold day in the rain, when President Bush placed his hand on that rain-soaked Bible to swear under oath to uphold the Constitution of the United States, it was the beginning of a storm that would not cease during his entire eight years in office. The Democrat Party and the mainstream media, from the very beginning, were determined to destroy the presidency of the Texas oil man, and regain control of the government as soon as they could sink their claws into it.

Extraordinary circumstances welled up throughout Bush's presidency, creating turbulent seas, and opportunities for the Liberal Left to launch attack after attack against George W. Bush.

During his presidency the United States experienced a terrorist attack unlike anything we have encountered before. Airplanes were flown into buildings, killing thousands of Americans. Two towers fell in New York City, forever changing the skyline of that city, and forever scarring the hearts of Americans. "We Shall Never Forget" became the rallying cry, and when George W. Bush vowed to bring the perpetrators to justice, the nation stood behind him.

Two foreign wars followed, as President Bush attempted to keep terrorism at bay by striking out at the nations that either trained these particular terrorists (Afghanistan); or supported, harbored, and trained terrorists while threatening to use their own weapons of mass destruction against American interests and allies (Iraq).

Al-Qaeda, the organization behind the attacks on 9/11, was pursued and damaged. Saddam Hussein was also dethroned later in Iraq. Attack after attack against the United States was stopped before they were able to commence, while Europe was being hit regularly from London to Madrid, and many points in between. It seemed to be that George W. Bush's hard-line stance against terror was succeeding, or at least here in The States.

The economy was flat during the beginning of Bush's presidency as well, but his tax cuts spurned growth and prosperity for much of his duration in the White House, only to come crumbling down when a housing market collapse, of which Bush warned the Democrats about as they rejected the notion in April of 2001, created an economic downturn we are frantically trying to remedy at this very hour.

The Bush Presidency also encountered, during the entirety of both terms, hard-ball tactics by the Democrats, which created partisan animosity of the likes never seen before by the American Political System. Spurned by a hostile media, Bush was called a liar and a thief. His every word was scrutinized, and his every action was demonized. Democrats that had voted for military action in the Middle East originally became anti-war activists. Because of Bush's lack of ability to communicate smoothly, he was characterized as a bumbling fool, and the people believed the accusations without taking into account all of the facts.

The Liberal Left created an environment of animosity against Bush by demonizing his every action. Many members of the public lost track of the facts. The resolve on 9/11 faded. President Bush's ratings went from some of the highest approval numbers in history to some of the lowest, and as a result, in 2006, the Democrats gained control of Congress, giving them the opportunity to launch the most sinister attacks against the Republican President yet.

I am in no way saying that everything Bush did, or tried to accomplish, was golden. His Medicare Prescription Plan is mired with more problems than one can shake a stick at. Unfortunately, we are seeing a progression towards accepting government paid medical care, and government dependency programs, that are sure to fail, and unfairly force the taxpayer to pay for the medical care and other benefits of those who, more often than not, don't even pay taxes in the first place. Should the insurance system be changed? Yes. But the change needs to be less government involvement, not more. Government needs to quit dictating how coverage must be applied. Wouldn't it be nice if health care insurance was like every other product in the Free Market System? Why can't we buy plans that fit our needs? How about plans that have only catastrophic coverage? What ever happened to choice? Where is the vestiges of free will that Americans have enjoyed for over two hundred years?

"No Child Left Behind" inserts the federal government even more into the public school system, trying to throw money at a problem that is not about funding, but about curriculum and methods used. This idiotic act, in my opinion, is one of Bush's greatest failures as president. I understand what he is trying to do, but the lessons of history continuously remind us that this kind of government intrusion only worsens the situation, not betters it. Besides, from a Constitutional standpoint, education is a local issue, anyway. The federal government has no business being involved and manipulating the system as they do. Besides, if the public school systems of America really wanted to improve, why don't they just take lessons from the most successful education programs in America and follow their curriculums and standards - - - you know, the Private Schools and Home School groups.

George W. Bush's amnesty ideas were yet another failed opinion, and I am glad he didn't spend a lot of time trying to get passed what he desired to do in this issue. In a sense, his reform of immigration would reward illegal aliens that are able to remain in hiding the longest, and then come out of the shadows once amnesty comes calling. Any illegal alien, be it the stereotype of a Mexican squeezing through a hole in the fence, or an Englishman who has remained here on an expired visa for twenty years, is breaking the law. Bush failed to see that we don't need immigration reform. We need to simply enforce the laws currently on the books. And for those who wish to accuse me of being racist, or hating anyone born in another country that doesn't speak English as a first language, you apparently don't know me very well. I believe that America is for Americans, and anyone that desires to become an American using the proper path to residency and/or citizenship should be rewarded with the opportunities that all Americans have. Illegals, however, receiving special treatment or amnesty, is like spitting in the face of those that have come to this country legally, followed the proper protocol, learned the language, and gladly became a citizen - like my Spanish-speaking, Mexican wife.

President Bush also failed to hold on to fiscal conservatism. His presidency was filled with a habit to overspend the taxpayers money, and implement programs that, though they had good intentions, were nothing more than federal government intrusion into arenas the federal government has no business being involved in. The crowning failure, in this respect, was the stimulus package and economic bailout. Government caused the economic downturn, and for some reason President Bush decided to team up with the Democrats and try to use government to fix the problem. In the end, the government manipulation of our economy through bailouts, stimulus packages, and over-regulation, will sink us deeper into economic troubles, and create a recessionary period that may, in fact, wind up becoming the worst recession since the Great Depression. The Free Market didn't fail us. The government failed The Free Market by trying to dictate to it how to function.

The Bush Achievements far outweigh his failures, despite what the sufferers of "Bush Derangement Syndrome" may spout every time they even hear the mention of Bush's name. George W. Bush always tried to do the right thing, defying his accusers more often than not. He didn't abandon his principles on a number of fronts because his approval rating went down amidst the false accusations of the left, nor did he cower and pull out of the regions where our troops are so bravely fighting because a bunch of media cronies declared it was a mistake. And believe me when I say that on September 11, 2001, we had the right man in office.

President George W. Bush encountered in his presidency the worst attack on American soil since Pearl Harbor in 1941. He bravely declared that ". . . the United States will hunt down and punish those responsible for these cowardly acts," shortly after the attacks occurred. He also stated that he would go after governments and organizations that trained and supported terrorism while doing whatever it took to prevent another attack like 9/11 from ever happening again (or at least during his presidency).

Bush didn't hesitate to put certain wartime actions into place. He enhanced the interrogation of terrorists, using techniques that saved thousands of lives, yet remained humane and were far from being torture when considering the techniques being used against Americans and allies by Islamic terrorists in the Middle East.

He took full advantage of Guantanamo Bay, making use of the prison to hold dangerous terrorists, and receive information from those prisoners that would save American lives. Technology was taken advantage of as well, allowing the U.S. Government to monitor phone and internet activity that would help them catch terror plots before they could come to fruition. This was achieved through many methods, including through the means of wireless eavesdropping, e-mail scanning of particular phrases or words, and heightened security at airports and federal facilities. This saved American lives, though we may never know exactly how many thousands of lives were actually saved by the President's actions. One thing is for sure, however. These are exactly the actions a president must take to keep a country safe and secure, and I believe that these actions by President Bush are precisely what kept us safe and prevented further terrorist attacks.

Through these methods crucial intelligence was obtained, some with the help of waterboarding, a technique which simulates drowning while never placing the recipient in any real danger. Many have debated on whether or not this is a tactic of torture, and I tend to think that it is not. Despite the answer to that question, which varies depending on whom you are talking to, the tactic has only been used three times, and with results that saved many lives - an argument I think greatly justifies the use of the interrogation method. For those that proclaim that this method is indeed torture, after considering the methods used against Americans by Islamic Jihadists, also remember that in a time of war sometimes the tough decisions must be made to protect American lives, and this is one of those decisions - a decision, once again, that was made only three times, and was used on the most hardened al-Qaeda terrorists that in the end saved numerous American lives.

In the face of the growing myth of Global Warming, President Bush also had the strength to recognize the hysteria for what it was, and he refused to sign on to the disastrous Kyoto Global Warming Treaty. Now, partly due to Bush's decision, which delayed the world from jumping head first into the man-made global warming lie, many scientists that originally jumped on the bandwagon of Global Warming have now recognized the falsities of the Gore's pseudo-science, reconsidered their position, and the support for the environmentalist-led agenda is waning. This does not mean, mind you, that I believe we should not be good stewards of the planet. However, I do not worship "Mother Earth," nor will I force my fellow citizens to jump on ridiculous environmental legislation that hurts more than helps in the long run. Besides, the facts are the facts, and in the last decade we have been experiencing a natural cycle of cooling, worldwide, after a natural cycle of warming happened prior. These warming and cooling phases are simply the result of solar flare and sunspot activity (combined with many other natural factors), and are hardly caused by our meager, less than one percent, contribution to worldwide greenhouse gases in the atmosphere - and like it or not, there is nothing we can do to change the course of global climate temperatures - no matter how much we believe we can.

During the Bush Presidency the United States also remained ready whenever disaster struck anywhere in the world. His presidency is filled with decisions to assist the fight against AIDS here and abroad while also providing relief for Tsunami victims, and earthquake disasters. American Troops, while keeping this nation free and protected during the last eight years, were also indispensable when it came to providing the world with help and support in the most dire times of need. And when such disasters struck here in America, Bush was also eager to deploy federal resources where and when allowed to by the U.S. Constitution. However, one must remember that the federal government cannot, by law, intrude on the states unless requested to do so - which was part of the problem with Katrina. No matter how ready the federal government was, they could not act until requested to do so by the state's governor, which is a part of the reason for the delay in FEMA's involvement.

One of George W. Bush's greatest accomplishments is The Surge. After "Misunderestimating" (to use one of Bush's cockeyed words) the enemy in Iraq, and going into the region with far too few ground troops, The Surge turned around a war that, though originally supported by a majority of Democrats in the beginning, had been unpopular to a broad segment of the American Public. The war was being lost, it seemed, and casualties were mounting. Contrary to popular belief, Bush always listened to the generals on the ground, but he had been listening to the wrong ones. When The Surge finally came into play, the tide turned in Iraq, the Iraqi government began to take more initiative, and now as Bush's second term comes to a close, we have essentially won in Iraq, and are now slowly beginning to pull troops out of the region - many of whom are being re-assigned to Afghanistan so that the loose ends in that conflict can finally be resolved.

I believe that George W. Bush will be looked upon favorably after the hysterical lies and myths propagated by the loony left fades, and the facts begin to surface. As the world we live in recognizes more and more the true nature of the enemy we face in Islamic Terror, Bush's decisions, that many believe held at bay any more terrorist attacks, will be seen as the right decisions - decisions that kept this nation safe from further attacks. Regardless of what the left continuously proclaims, I believe that Bush always tried to do what he thought was the right thing to do. He has visibly aged during his presidency, which is evidence that being president of the greatest country on God's green Earth is not an easy job. To be honest, I am sure he was happiest while mountain-biking away from his oval office.

And as this chapter in American History approaches its closing, Bush's final speech was one of his best. He addressed those that opposed him. He explained how his decisions always centered around keeping this nation safe from another 9/11. Bush never gave in to the Washington cockroaches. He remained steady in his resolve. And through it all, he never allowed the illusion of power to cloud his decisions. He recognized, after all, what the Presidency of the United States is truly all about. He said it best when he called it the "Privilege of a lifetime."

Friday, January 16, 2009

Congressional Democrat's Own Stimulus Package

The Congress has beat Obama to the punch with their own stimulus package. Spending, spending, and a little more spending. Of course deficit spending was horrendous when Republicans did it, but suddenly it is fine with the Democrats now that it is them doing it? And those tax breaks they are promising are hardly such, since most of the people receiving them don't pay taxes. They are more like . . . welfare checks.

And where is this money coming from?

You are going to pay for it, not just in taxes, but a collapsed economy destroyed by the fiat money being used by an overpowering governmental body that is hungry for power, and one that cares less about the U.S. Constitution.

Of course, while they are at screwing us with this stimulus package, they are also going to soak the top earners - - - you know, the people that run the businesses and manufacture products in this country.

Of course Obama says he wants to grow the economy from the bottom up. So answer me a question: have you ever seen anyone in the lower income bracket create jobs?

The Agent of Change Changes His Mind About Gitmo

From my good friend Jim Stewart:

Remember when Obama said this?



Now he says this:

President-elect Barack Obama said this weekend that he does not expect to close Guantanamo Bay in his first 100 days in office.

“I think it’s going to take some time and our legal teams are working in consultation with our national security apparatus as we speak to help design exactly what we need to do,” Obama said in an exclusive “This Week” interview with George Stephanopoulos, his first since arriving in Washington.

“It is more difficult than I think a lot of people realize,” the president-elect explained. “Part of the challenge that you have is that you have a bunch of folks that have been detained, many of whom may be very dangerous who have not been put on trial or have not gone through some adjudication. And some of the evidence against them may be tainted even though it’s true. And so how to balance creating a process that adheres to rule of law, habeas corpus, basic principles of Anglo-American legal system, by doing it in a way that doesn’t result in releasing people who are intent on blowing us up.”

Thursday, January 15, 2009

"So Help Me God" removed from oath?

A group of "non-theists" led by well known Atheist Michael Newdow tried to have "So help me God" removed from the oath of office that will be recited by Barack Obama on Inaugeration Day. The filed lawsuit, however, did not go too far. U.S. District Judge Reggie Walton rejected the call for preventing the ministers from praying or Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts from administering the oath with God in the wording. Obama also indicated he wanted that part of the oath included.

Jay Seculow, The American Center of Law and Justice Chief Counsel, said of the case, "This is once again a flawed attempt to purge all religious references and observances from American public life. The fact is that this country has a long history of invoking God at inaugural events. Such references are not only appropriate but constitutional as well. This legal challenge is clearly misplaced. . ."

Wednesday, January 14, 2009

Socialized Medicine in Increments. . . first, the children

According to the Associated Press, the House of Representatives passed a children's health care bill that is yet another step towards a nationalized health insurance system in this nation.

Interestingly, they did not learn from the failures of plans similar to this in other countries, or more recently in Hawaii.

Also, included in the provisions are the state option to cover illegal aliens, an increased cigarette tax (so what happens when everyone finally quits smoking like they have been pressuring people to do? Then where will the money come from?), mandates to the states to include dental coverage (the fed has no business mandating the states to do anything on the local level - constitutionally speaking), and limits the ability for physician-owned hospitals to expand (in other words, how dare your business grow and become successful, and how dare you choose your clients).

This is even more government intrusion into your lives with this Democratic bill, and more is coming with Obama in the White House.

BOHICA

Tuesday, January 13, 2009

Losing Objectivity

When you love someone, you lose objectivity. When the neighbor kid does something wrong, he's a bad kid - but if it is your child, there are all of these benevolent reasons for his actions. Barack Obama is that kid that can do no wrong.

Have you ever seen in the news when a young man is in court for murder, or another crime, and the camera flashes to the parents and they are defending the child to the end, even in the face of insurmountable evidence? If it was my child, I am sure I would do the same. When it comes to one's child a parent's love is immense.

Sometimes, however, that love is so great that the parent loses all objectivity to the point that it could be dangerous - for the health of that child. The child begins to believe they can do no wrong. They don't believe there is any consequences for their actions. They go through life believing that everything that happens to them is always somebody else's fault.

Perhaps a teenager attends a party, a party with people he or she would not normally be around (or maybe people they hang around in secret), and it gets them into trouble. It couldn't possibly be the teen's fault, right? How could it be their fault? Even though they decided to be in a place they shouldn't be in, around people they shouldn't be around, it couldn't possibly be on them, right?

I remember when I was a kid my dad used to tell me that the best way to stay out of trouble is not to put yourself into the position that will get you into trouble in the first place.

That was very good advice.

Sometimes people tend to be attracted to that kind of trouble, and that kind of company.

Often the company a person keeps is a tell-tale sign of what the heart of that person truly is.

A young man, your son perhaps, may call you sir, or ma'am. He may look you in the eye when he shakes your hand. He may play a good game. Little do you know that deep in the recesses of his pocket is a baggie of marijuana, or coke, or what-not, and that when nobody is looking he is hanging out with the "bad crowd."

Maybe while you are looking you notice he is hanging out with the wrong people, but you shrug it off. "Hey," you say, "kids will be kids. It's not like he's always hanging out with those bad kids, he just knows them as acquaintances. And then when those people he associates with gets into trouble, he assures everyone that although he knew them, it's not like he hung out with them. He knew of them, he bumped into them a few times. It's not like he was friends-friends with them. And then my-my-my, how surprised you are, when this young man grows older and rather than learning through the consequences of his actions, he becomes a manipulator, a legend in his own mind, and eventually, possibly, a criminal, or something more sinister. If only you had recognized this based on the company he was keeping, the clues in his body language, the words he spoke. But see, you loved him so much, you thought the world of him, you thought so highly of him because you love him. But you failed to recognize the signs.

Barack Obama is that loved son. His adoring fans, the Democratic Party, and the hapless Obama voters, are that parent that sees no wrong.

Obama has no experience, but who cares, right? He'll just learn on the job. We love him, we know he can do it.

He's been hanging out with Reverend Wright, and Tony Rezko, and Bill Ayers - everyone around him like Blagojevich and Richardson are steeped in controversy and scandal. Oh, yeah, but he wasn't really friends-friends with them, he wasn't really-really talking to them. But Obama comes from the Chicago political scene which is soaked in corruption. Oh, but yeah, I know, being around that cess-pool and being dunked in it early in his political career doesn't mean that any of the "cess" from the cess-pool stuck to him, right?

When Barack Obama says things he doesn't really, truly, answer any questions, because he couldn't possibly do anything wrong - he's not pro-choice or pro-life, he's a little bit of both. He's not a Christian or a non-Christian, he's a tad of each. He's not in support of the fundamental definition of marriage being between a man and a woman, or is he in support of the gay agenda - he's a little bit of both. He's not a fiscal conservative, or a fiscal liberal - he'll spend like a drunken liberal, yet you'll get your taxes cut - he's a little bit of both. He's not really an anti-war candidate. After all, he's willing to get tough in Afghanistan, and even attack Pakistan if he has to. But he wants us out of Iraq as soon as possible because war is bad. Well, okay, in 16 months or so, even though he began his campaign proclaiming he wanted immediate withdrawal from the region. I suppose even in war, he's a little bit of both.

Maybe I should rename Obama "A Little Bit of Both."

He reminds me of that commercial, the one where the customer wants their bagel toasted and untoasted at the same time. To have the bagel both ways is not possible. Oh, but with Obama it is. Apparently, he knows how to be a little bit of both.

If his teenage daughter was to become pregnant, it would be a mistake, a punishment - wasn't it him that said he wouldn't want his daughter punished with a child? And when a botched abortion is gasping for survival laying on a table, he voted against legislation that would provide medical care to that baby, because Obama would rather that child die on that table because it was originally intended to be put to death by abortion. But, as he said with Rick Warren in that debate at Saddleback Church, he dislikes abortion, and the abortion numbers are coming down, and he is very happy about that. That, he said, is what he is working toward. Oh, wait, there he goes again! He's a little bit of both!

He's a little bit of both with everything.

He's change, and no change. His entire platform was on change. Yet his entire administration, well, nearly entire, is full of Clintonites, Clintonistas, Clinton holdovers from Bill's presidency.

Even hope is something he is a little bit a both of. The campaign was all about hope and change. Hope was one of the main ingredients of his campaign. Yet, there is no hope in the economic situation. He said so himself. We are in for some hard times. Heck, listening to him during the campaign, I was thinking that suddenly everything was supposed to magically improve the day he took office, the economy was going to suddenly improve just because of the improved outlook caused by the messiah becoming president. Hmmm, even with hope, he's a little bit of both.

And the Obama voters, and the Obama Democrats, and the rest of the lefties, don't call him on it - because they love him. Their love has made them subjective. They have lost their objectivity. Their love has rendered them incapable of recognizing his inconsistencies, his uncanny ability to offer no specifics because he stands for nothing, and his dubious connections with people like Rezko, Ayers, Jeremiah Wright, Blagojevich.

Yes, Obama is like that kid of the street, the one whose parents let him run wild. He does everything wrong, he hangs out with the wrong people, but when he's around mom and dad, he plasters on that great big smile, looks you in the eye when he shakes your hand, and makes you feel good about him down to your soul, because you love him - and he can do no wrong.

Monday, January 12, 2009

When Faith Is Censored

I am a huge Anaheim Angels fan (I refuse to use the Los Angeles part of the name, Anaheim is not L.A.) and I remember watching Francisco (K-Rod) Rodriguez (Now with the New York Mets) thank God after each and every save that wound up giving him a record 62 Saves on the season. It always put a smile on my face, and gave me a sense of connection with Frankie.

Pointing skyward after a great play, or a team huddling in prayer after a game, or a player beginning an interview after a big win with the words, "First, I'd like to thank God," is nothing new. There have been many players that have been vocal about their faith throughout the history of modern sports. However, as we proceed to the end of the first decade of the new century, it seems as if the media is turning the cameras away from such professions of faith - and it is never a news item anymore.

In football, one of the players most outspoken about his Christian faith, is Quarterback Kurt Warner.

Warner originally exploded onto the NFL scene after a short career in Arena Football with the Iowa Barnstormers. When he joined the Rams he wound up leading the team to a Super Bowl, and thanking God every step of the way. Faith is at the core of Warner's life, and he takes every opportunity he can to proclaim such.

Kurt Warner's career after the Rams, as the quarterback aged, seemed to be winding down, and Warner was playing back-up a lot more than starter. Then his chance came to revive his career with the Arizona Cardinals, and he has now taken the Cards to the NFC Championship Game.

As a result of his resurgence, he was asked to be on The Oprah Winfrey Show. While on the show he was given three sentences he could say, so in the middle one he made sure his faith was mentioned. Later, when he watched the show on replay, he realized that they cut it out!

It is a sad state of affairs when we see this kind of action by the media. After all, telling Kurt's story without God is to ignore what drives him.

Warner accepted the Lord after his wife became a Christian. After he accused her of picking and choosing what to believe in the Bible, he studied the Scripture in order to prove her faith wrong. When he began to learn the Bible in the proper context, and studied its various interconnections, he was left with no alternative but to become a follower of Christ.

Kurt, keep praising God. You are a sterling example for the rest of us.

Sunday, January 11, 2009

Wilshire and Veteran - L.A. Site of Pro-Hamas Rally

I have attended two rallies before going out to Westwood to stand with Israel yesterday. Both of my previous rallies were "Free Ramos/Compean" rallies, where the opposition was limited, or non-existent, in numbers. Since this is my first big rally, I guess that would make me a protest virgin. The number of Anti-Israel protesters was huge, guessed by many to be about 3,000.

Gawfer, a fellow blogger and local friend, called me up earlier in the week and asked, "Doug, what are you doing this Saturday?" Ultimately, he invited me to join a bunch of other area conservative bloggers to go to the Pro-Palestinian/Anti-Israel Protest so that we could stand with the few Pro-Israel folks that would be there.

I immediately agreed to be there.

Evrviglnt of Political Vindication was one of the organizers, and has great pics of the rally, by the way.

Anyhow, I picked up Gawfer yesterday morning, and along the way we also gathered up Prying1, and arrived ready to rally. Also joining us was Eric of Tygrrrr Express, Joi The Artist, and Gary Fouse. Eric is an American Jew, and was afraid of nothing and nobody. He wound up being interviewed by two local radio stations (News Radio KNX and Liberal Radio KPFK) and L.A.'s ABC 7.

Upon arrival we had to wade through two large groups of Anti-Israel protesters with Eric of Tygrrrr Express leading the way with a huge sign that said, "Terrorists Wear Masks For A Reason." I was wearing a U.S. Navy Veteran hat and holding a sign that said, "Israel, We Stand With You." The opposition flung profanity at us, calling us baby killers and screaming that Israel are the real terrorists. In the background another part of the group was chanting, "Free, Free, Palestine."

As we joined the other Pro-Israel Rally participants the shouting from the Pro-Hamas groups became louder and more pointed toward our little group which at that time numbered 23. The group grew a little as the day progressed, but when compared to the thousands of terrorist supporters, our group was quite small. Not to worry, I was assured, because on Sunday between two and four in the afternoon there was going to be a massive Pro-Israel rally.

When the Anti-Israel protesters began to march the police herded the Pro-Israel group ahead of the terrorist supporters, wanting to keep us away from the possibility of any confrontations. It was then that I had the opportunity to really get to know my fellow supporters of Israel, and to learn the stories they had to tell.

One of these folks was a South American Jew who had earlier been interviewed by a Spanish speaking TV station. He and I spoke for quite a while, and I interviewed him live on Snoopers "Take Our Country Back" radio show. As with most of my companions, he has family in Israel, and relatives directly involved in the fight to protect Israel.

In the end, I found many friends in the fight to support Israel, and I appreciated the time with them.

But the sentence that sums up the entire situation between Israel and her neighbors was not said at the rally, or by any of the pundits on the radio or television. Instead, I read it in an article by Daniel Finkelstein in The Times.

It read, "Israel acts because the world won't defend it."

Saturday, January 10, 2009

Live Coverage of Pro-Palestinian Protest on Wilshire Blvd. in Los Angeles, California

I called into Snooper's Blog Talk Radio Show, Take Our Country Back, while I was at the Rally in Los Angeles facing off with anti-Israel/Pro-Palestine protestors. Hear myself, Shane of Political Vindication, and more, on the media player below:

or access episode HERE

Founding Truth with Me and Loki (and joined by Honest Conservative and Snooper) broadcasted a roundtable of Conservatives as we discussed the Palestinian/Israeli conflict, and the importance of Israel's act to defend herself - also, we discuss at length what I experienced at the Rally in Los Angeles, breaking down the meaning of a lot of what I saw and heard at the rally:

or access the show HERE

On Political Pistachio Radio I played audio clips of my experience at the Protest in L.A. where ANSWER staged an anti-Israel/Pro-Palestinian Protest - - - and I stood with Israel.



Or Listen HERE