Obama Is Not An American!!! - Obama Is A Fraud!!! - Obama Is A Muslim!!!

Obama Is An Embarrassment To The Presidency, and To AMERICA!

Scroll Down And Check Out The Links List On The Lower Right Side of The Page

Wednesday, May 27, 2009

'The One' Picks An Activist Judge!

Before the election I had a bumper sticker on my truck that read...
NOBAMA! NO Activist Judges!

Unfortunately, my fears have come true... Here's a little history on Sotomayor.

From The Hill.Com
Critics focus on Sotomayor speech in La Raza journal
By Alexander Bolton

Senate Republicans investigating Sonia Sotomayor’s record are zeroing in on a speech she delivered in 2001 in which she stated her hope that a “wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences,” including appreciation for Latin-American cuisine, “would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn’t lived that life.”

They are also taking a close look at the Supreme Court nominee's skepticism, expressed in the same speech, about whether it is possible for judges to “transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices.”

Sotomayor delivered the Judge Mario G. Olmos Memorial Lecture in 2001 at the University of California at Berkeley School of Law. The Berkeley La Raza Law Journal published the lecture the following year.

Conservative critics have latched onto the speech as evidence that Sotomayor is an “activist judge,” who will rule on the basis of her personal beliefs instead of facts and law.

“Personal experiences affect the facts that judges choose to see,” Sotomayor said.

“My hope is that I will take the good from my experiences and extrapolate them further into areas with which I am unfamiliar. I simply do not know exactly what that difference will be in my judging. But I accept there will be some based on my gender and my Latina heritage.”

Sotomayor also claimed: “For me, a very special part of my being Latina is the mucho platos de arroz, gandoles y pernir — rice, beans and pork — that I have eaten at countless family holidays and special events.”

This has prompted some Republicans to muse privately about whether Sotomayor is suggesting that distinctive Puerto Rican cuisine such as patitas de cerdo con garbanzo — pigs’ feet with chickpeas — would somehow, in some small way influence her verdicts from the bench.

Curt Levey, the executive director of the Committee for Justice, a conservative-leaning advocacy group, said he wasn’t certain whether Sotomayor had claimed her palate would color her view of legal facts but he said that President Obama’s Supreme Court nominee clearly touts her subjective approach to the law.

“It’s pretty disturbing,” said Levey. “It’s one thing to say that occasionally a judge will despite his or her best efforts to be impartial ... allow occasional biases to cloud impartiality.

"But it’s almost like she’s proud that her biases and personal experiences will cloud her impartiality.”

Conservative critics say that a willingness to rule on the basis of personal values instead of the law and legal precedent is at the core of judicial activism.

And some Senate Republicans have said a nominee with a clear propensity toward activism would deserve a filibuster.

Levey, who has been in contact with other conservative activists and Republicans on Capitol Hill, predicted that the speech would be raised at Sotomayor’s confirmation hearing.

“I cannot imagine that Sen. Sessions and some of the other Republicans will not bring that up,” he said in reference to Sen. Jeff Sessions (Ala.), the ranking Republican on the Judiciary Committee.

“It’s fine to identify with Latina heritage all she wants, just not in the courtroom,” he said. The Berkeley La Raza Law Journal did not respond to a request for comment.

In her 2001 speech, after citing legal thinkers who called on jurists to transcend personal biases, Sotomayor questioned whether judges could in fact escape such prejudices.

“While recognizing the potential effect of individual experiences on perception, Judge Cedarbaum nevertheless believes that judges must transcend their personal sympathies and prejudices and aspire to achieve a greater degree of fairness and integrity based on the reason of law,” Sotomayor said.

“Although I agree with and attempt to work toward Judge Cedarbaum's aspiration, I wonder whether achieving that goal is possible in all or even in most cases. And I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.”

Some Republican critics say these statements raise concerns about whether Sotomayor, who was raised under modest circumstances in the Bronx, would serve as a neutral arbiter in a case pitting a wealthy white male against a less wealthy man or woman of color.

In her most controversial decision, Sotomayor ruled against 18 white firefighters, including one Hispanic, in their lawsuit against New Haven, Conn., after city officials scrapped a promotional test that showed the plaintiffs more eligible for advancement within the fire department.

The white firefighters scored much better than their African-American peers on the test. Concerns about Sotomayor’s activist view of the law prompted 29 Republicans to vote against her nomination to the 2nd Circuit Court of Appeals in 1998.

“I think 29 senators voted against her last time,” Sessions said in a CNN interview Wednesday. “I think there was an unease maybe about her background and her tendency to activism. We'll just have to go back and look at the record and see what most people felt.”
Sessions voted against Sotomayor’s nomination.

From Human Events:
In Sotomayor's Own Words(Partial)
“America has a deeply confused image of itself that is in perpetual tension. We are nation that takes pride in our ethnic diversity, recognizing its importance in shaping our society and in adding richness to its existence.

Yet, we simultaneously insist that we can and must function and live in a race and color-blind way that ignore these very differences that in other contexts we laud…
Many of us struggle with this tension and attempt to maintain and promote our cultural and ethnic identities in a society that is often ambivalent about how to deal with differences.”

“I wonder whether by ignoring our differences as women or men of color we do a disservice both to the law and society.”

“I further accept that our experiences as women and people of color affect our decisions. The aspiration to impartiality is just that -- it’s an aspiration because it denies the fact that we are by our experiences making different choices than others.”

“All of the Legal Defense Funds out there -- they're looking for people with Court of Appeals experience. Because it is -- Court of Appeals is where policy is made. And I know, and I know, that this is on tape, and I should never say that. Because we don't ‘make law.’ ”

“Whether born from experience or inherent physiological or cultural differences, a possibility I abhor less or discount less than my colleague Judge Cedarbaum, our gender and national origins may and will make a difference in our judging.”

So... If she gets confirmed, we'll all be in for a bumpy ride.
I too enjoy Central American food...
but, I don't want to live in
Central America!

Sunday, May 24, 2009

V.P. Dick Cheney Speaks His Mind

A Tribute To Gen. David Petraeus

Rush Resigns As Titular Head of Republican Party!

I had a conversation about Rush today with a neighbor.
The neighbor said he, "Hated Rush! Rush thinks so highly of himself! He's an arrogant, pompous ass!"

As I calmly tried to persuade the neighbor that much of Rush's bravado is done with tongue firmly planted in cheek, he refused to come down from his lofty position of rebuke. I suspect that many simply do not understand the complexity of Rush Limbaugh's intelligence.


But this should cheer up the neighbor!

Thursday, May 14, 2009

OK... Is WaterBoarding Torture? And, Did Pelosi Know About It In 2002?

After the events of September 11, 2001, we all know that our government took the position that we would do 'whatever was necessary' to prevent another attack on American soil from the Radical Islamists.

Like most citizens I wanted our government to find out who was behind this horrific act, bring them to justice, and find out if there were MORE attacks being planned.

I really don't believe that ANY American, in the months following the attack, cared one way or the other how the government got the answers... as long as the answers were obtained.

After the Left began to torment President Bush about Iraq and other nonsensical issues, they began to look at HOW the CIA and others obtained 'the answers', knowing that if torture was used, the Left could make 'political hay' out of the event.

"Never let a crisis go to waste"...

I don't believe for one second that members of Congress, including Speaker Pelosi, were kept out of the loop about what was going on with captured enemy combatants, and how 'the answers' were obtained.

But, now Pelose denies having ever been told about 'waterboarding' and wants to continue to deflect all blame back to the Bush Administration, without getting her hands dirty.
Sorry, Nancy... But you knew EXACTLY what was going on!

Here's an article from Karl Rove:
Congress and Waterboarding
Nancy Pelosi was an accomplice to 'torture.'

Ny Karl Rove
Someone important appears not to be telling the truth about her knowledge of the CIA's use of enhanced interrogation techniques (EITs).

That someone is Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi.

The political persecution of Bush administration officials she has been pushing may now ensnare her.

Here's what we know.
On Sept. 4, 2002, less than a year after 9/11, the CIA briefed Rep. Porter Goss, then House Intelligence Committee chairman, and Mrs. Pelosi, then the committee's ranking Democrat, on EITs including waterboarding. They were the first members of Congress to be informed.

In December 2007, Mrs. Pelosi admitted that she attended the briefing, but she wouldn't comment for the record about precisely what she was told.

At the time the Washington Post spoke with a "congressional source familiar with Pelosi's position on the matter" and summarized that person's comments this way: "The source said Pelosi recalls that techniques described by the CIA were still in the planning stage -- they had been designed and cleared with agency lawyers but not yet put in practice -- and acknowledged that Pelosi did not raise objections at the time."

When questions were raised last month about these statements, Mrs. Pelosi insisted at a news conference that "We were not -- I repeat -- were not told that waterboarding or any of these other enhanced interrogation methods were used."

Mrs. Pelosi also claimed that the CIA "did not tell us they were using that, flat out. And any, any contention to the contrary is simply not true." She had earlier said on TV, "I can say flat-out, they never told us that these enhanced interrogations were being used."

The Obama administration's CIA director, Leon Panetta, and Mr. Goss have both disputed Mrs. Pelosi's account.

In a report to Congress on May 5, Mr. Panetta described the CIA's 2002 meeting with Mrs. Pelosi as "Briefing on EITs including use of EITs on Abu Zubaydah, background on [legal] authorities, and a description of the particular EITs that had been employed."
Note the past tense -- "had been employed."

Mr. Goss says he and Mrs. Pelosi were told at the 2002 briefing about the use of the EITs and "on a bipartisan basis, we asked if the CIA needed more support from Congress to carry out its mission."

He is backed by CIA sources who say Mr. Goss and Mrs. Pelosi "questioned whether we were doing enough" to extract information.

We also know that Michael Sheehy, then Mrs. Pelosi's top aide on the Intelligence Committee and later her national security adviser, not only attended the September 2002 meeting but was also briefed by the CIA on EITs on Feb. 5, 2003, and told about a videotape of Zubaydah being waterboarded.

Mr. Sheehy was almost certain to have told Mrs. Pelosi. He has not commented publicly about the 2002 or the 2003 meetings.

So is the speaker of the House lying about what she knew and when? And, if so, what will Democrats do about it?

If Mrs. Pelosi considers the enhanced interrogation techniques to be torture, didn't she have a responsibility to complain at the time, introduce legislation to end the practices, or attempt to deny funding for the CIA's use of them?

If she knew what was going on and did nothing, does that make her an accessory to a crime of torture, as many Democrats are calling enhanced interrogation?

Senate Judiciary Chairman Pat Leahy wants an independent investigation of Bush administration officials.

House Judiciary Chairman John Conyers feels the Justice Department should investigate and prosecute anyone who violated laws against committing torture.

Are these and other similarly minded Democrats willing to have Mrs. Pelosi thrown into their stew of torture conspirators as an accomplice?

It is clear that after the 9/11 attacks Mrs. Pelosi was briefed on enhanced interrogation techniques and the valuable information they produced.

She not only agreed with what was being done, she apparently pressed the CIA to do more.

But when political winds shifted, Mrs. Pelosi seems to have decided to use enhanced interrogation as an issue to attack Republicans.

It is disgraceful that Democrats who discovered their outrage years after the fact are now braying for disbarment of the government lawyers who justified EITs and the prosecution of Bush administration officials who authorized them. Mrs. Pelosi is hip-deep in dangerous waters, and they are rapidly rising.

Mr. Rove is the former senior adviser and deputy chief of staff to President George W. Bush.

So, obviously Nancy knew all about it.
But is waterboarding torture?

A CNN poll from 11/6/07 said it was.
A majority of Americans consider waterboarding a form of torture, but some of those say it's OK for the U.S. government to use the technique, according to a poll released Tuesday.

Asked whether they think waterboarding is a form of torture, more than two-thirds of respondents, or 69 percent, said yes; 29 percent said no.

Asked whether they think the U.S. government should be allowed to use the procedure to try to get information from suspected terrorists, 58 percent said no; 40 percent said yes.

Sources with knowledge of the CIA-run interrogation program have said waterboarding is not currently being used in its interrogations. But those sources have said waterboarding was used in the interrogation of Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, now facing trial before a military tribunal for planning al Qaeda's 2001 attacks on New York and Washington.

Waterboarding was used during the Spanish Inquisition and by Cambodia's brutal Khmer Rouge regime and the World War II Japanese military, according to advocacy group Human Rights Watch.

The CNN/Opinion Research Corp. telephone poll of 1,024 American adults was carried out over the weekend and had a sampling error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points.

So in 2007, nearly 60% of those polled by telephone, said our government SHOULD NOT use waterboarding to obtain 'the answers'. Interesting...

Also back in November of 2007, during the conformation hearings for US Attorney-General Michael Mukasey, this was reported...

Even though Congress banned waterboarding in the US military in 2005, it did not do so for the CIA.

As a result, Mr Mukasey told senators, it was uncertain whether this technique or other harsh methods constituted "cruel, inhuman or degrading" treatment. His answers did not satisfy the Democrats, however, and his approval now hinges on whether he is willing to say the torture method is against US law.

In a further embarrassment for Mr Bush yesterday, Malcolm Nance, an advisor on terrorism to the US departments of Homeland Security, Special Operations and Intelligence, publicly denounced the practice.

He revealed that waterboarding is used in training at the US Navy's Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape School in San Diego, and claimed to have witnessed and supervised "hundreds" of waterboarding exercises.

Although these last only a few minutes and take place under medical supervision, he concluded that "waterboarding is a torture technique – period".

The practice involves strapping the person being interrogated on to a board as pints of water are forced into his lungs through a cloth covering his face while the victim's mouth is forced open. Its effect, according to Mr Nance, is a process of slow-motion suffocation.

Typically, a victim goes into hysterics on the board as water fills his lungs. "How much the victim is to drown," Mr Nance wrote in an article for the Small Wars Journal, "depends on the desired result and the obstinacy of the subject."

A team doctor watches the quantity of water that is ingested and for the physiological signs which show when the drowning effect goes from painful psychological experience to horrific, suffocating punishment, to the final death spiral. For the uninitiated, it is horrifying to watch."

OK, it's very scary and 'horrifying' to watch.
You mean like watching the World Trade Center buildings collapse and terrified victims jump to their death from a hundred stories up?
That kind of 'horrifying'?

Then we have the current AG, Eric Holder say this back in January of 2009...

Waterboarding Is Torture, Holder Tells Senators
Justice Dept. Nominee Rejects Policies Of Bush Era but Stresses Bipartisanship
Attorney General-designate Eric H. Holder Jr. brushed aside Republican concerns about his record yesterday as he charted a new, less divisive course for the Justice Department on issues of national security, civil rights and financial crime.

In his confirmation hearing before the Senate Judiciary Committee, Holder declared that the interrogation practice known as waterboarding amounts to torture, departing from the interpretation of his Bush administration predecessors.

He promised to perform a "damage assessment" to evaluate how politically motivated hiring during the Bush era continues to affect the department.

And he pledged to work closely with Congress and serve as "the people's lawyer," rather than devote his loyalty solely to the incoming president, Barack Obama.

So now, we're going to act all high and mighty about how 'the answers' were obtained?

Ok, waterboarding is torture.
But frankly I don't care what technique the CIA or anybody else uses to keep America safe!

These radical muslim extremists mean to kill us all!

If they could get at Holder, they'd slit his throat! If they could get at Pelosi, they'd saw off her head!

For Democrats to politicize this affair and to ridicule the Bush Administration for their efforts to keep America safe is dispicable!

Their 'holier than thou', 'nose stuck up in the air', arrogant attitude will do nothing but embolden the enemy and cause America more harm.

Democrats continue to live in a September 10, 2001 world. They continue to fail to realize that, America IS AT WAR!

There is a world wide war going on between American interests, our way of life, Western Civilsation and the 10th Century world of Radical Islam!

I'm convinced that liberalism, difinitely IS a mental disorder!


Wednesday, May 13, 2009

Chrysler and the Rule of Law

Interesting article from The Wall Street Journal...

Chrysler and the Rule of Law
The Founders put the contracts clause in the Constitution for a reason.

By Todd J. Zywicki

The rule of law, not of men -- an ideal tracing back to the ancient Greeks and well-known to our Founding Fathers -- is the animating principle of the American experiment.

While the rest of the world in 1787 was governed by the whims of kings and dukes, the U.S. Constitution was established to circumscribe arbitrary government power. It would do so by establishing clear rules, equally applied to the powerful and the weak.

Fleecing lenders to pay off politically powerful interests, or governmental threats to reputation and business from a failure to toe a political line? We might expect this behavior from a Hugo Chávez.
But it would never happen here, right?
Until Chrysler.

The close relationship between the rule of law and the enforceability of contracts, especially credit contracts, was well understood by the Framers of the U.S. Constitution.

A primary reason they wanted it was the desire to escape the economic chaos spawned by debtor-friendly state laws during the period of the Articles of Confederation.

Hence the Contracts Clause of Article V of the Constitution, which prohibited states from interfering with the obligation to pay debts.
Hence also the Bankruptcy Clause of Article I, Section 8, which delegated to the federal government the sole authority to enact "uniform laws on the subject of bankruptcies."

The Obama administration's behavior in the Chrysler bankruptcy is a profound challenge to the rule of law.

Secured creditors -- entitled to first priority payment under the "absolute priority rule" -- have been browbeaten by an American president into accepting only 30 cents on the dollar of their claims.

Meanwhile, the United Auto Workers union, holding junior creditor claims, will get about 50 cents on the dollar.

The absolute priority rule is a linchpin of bankruptcy law. By preserving the substantive property and contract rights of creditors, it ensures that bankruptcy is used primarily as a procedural mechanism for the efficient resolution of financial distress.

Chapter 11 promotes economic efficiency by reorganizing viable but financially distressed firms, i.e., firms that are worth more alive than dead.

Violating absolute priority undermines this commitment by introducing questions of redistribution into the process. It enables the rights of senior creditors to be plundered in order to benefit the rights of junior creditors.

The U.S. government also wants to rush through what amounts to a sham sale of all of Chrysler's assets to Fiat. While speedy bankruptcy sales are not unheard of, they are usually reserved for situations involving a wasting or perishable asset (think of a truck of oranges) where delay might be fatal to the asset's, or in this case the company's, value.
That's hardly the case with Chrysler.

But in a Chapter 11 reorganization, creditors have the right to vote to approve or reject the plan.

The Obama administration's asset-sale plan implements a de facto reorganization but denies to creditors the opportunity to vote on it.

By stepping over the bright line between the rule of law and the arbitrary behavior of men, President Obama may have created a thousand new failing businesses.

That is, businesses that might have received financing before but that now will not, since lenders face the potential of future government confiscation.

In other words, Mr. Obama may have helped save the jobs of thousands of union workers whose dues, in part, engineered his election. But what about the untold number of job losses in the future caused by trampling the sanctity of contracts today?

The value of the rule of law is not merely a matter of economic efficiency. It also provides a bulwark against arbitrary governmental action taken at the behest of politically influential interests at the expense of the politically unpopular.

The government's threats and bare-knuckle tactics set an ominous precedent for the treatment of those considered insufficiently responsive to its desires. Certainly, holdout Chrysler creditors report that they felt little confidence that the White House would stop at informal strong-arming.

Chrysler -- or more accurately, its unionized workers -- may be helped in the short run. But we need to ask how eager lenders will be to offer new credit to General Motors knowing that the value of their investment could be diminished or destroyed by government to enrich a politically favored union.

We also need to ask how eager hedge funds will be to participate in the government's Public-Private Investment Program to purchase banks' troubled assets.

And what if the next time it is a politically unpopular business -- such as a pharmaceutical company -- that's on the brink? Might the government force it to surrender a patent to get the White House's agreement to get financing for the bankruptcy plan?

Mr. Zywicki is a professor of law at George Mason University and the author of a book on consumer bankruptcy and consumer lending, forthcoming from Yale University Press.

Umm- humm... Change We Can Believe In!

Tuesday, May 12, 2009

The Post Turtle...

Of course this an old joke, but The Patriot Post had it up again today(along with a few other funnies...),
so I thought I'd share it with friends...
It IS very humorous and quite true!

The Post Turtle

A doctor struck up a conversation with a hard-working 75 year old rancher while suturing a mean cut on the old man's leathery hand.

Eventually the topic got around to Obama.

The old rancher said, "Well, you know, Obama is a 'post turtle.'"

Unfamiliar with the term, the doctor asked him what he meant.

The old rancher replied, "When you're driving down a country road and you come across a fence post with a turtle balanced on top, that's a 'post turtle'."


The old rancher saw the puzzled look on the doctor's face so he continued:

"You know, he didn't get up there by himself, he doesn't belong up there, and he doesn't know what to do while he's up there, and you just wonder what kind of complete moron put him up there to begin with."

Post turtle... yep...

Sunday, May 10, 2009

Yep... Shot and Strangled!!!

David Feherty gave me one hell of a laugh!
Hope you enjoy it as much as I did!

From FOX News:
Golf Analyst Feherty Sorry for Pelosi Joke in Dallas Magazine
CBS Sports golf analyst David Feherty apologized Sunday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for a morbid joke that went bad in a Dallas magazine.

PONTE VEDRA BEACH, Fla. -- CBS Sports golf analyst David Feherty apologized Sunday to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid for a morbid joke that went bad in a Dallas magazine.

Feherty, one of the most popular golf analysts for his sharp wit and self-deprecating humor, was among five Dallas residents who wrote for "D Magazine" on former President George W. Bush moving to Dallas.

"From my own experience visiting the troops in the Middle East, I can tell you this though," Feherty wrote toward the end of his column.

"Despite how the conflict has been portrayed by our glorious media, if you gave any U.S. soldier a gun with two bullets in it, and he found himself in an elevator with Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid and Osama bin Laden, there's a good chance that Nancy Pelosi would get shot twice, and Harry Reid and bin Laden would be strangled to death."

Feherty, a former Ryder Cup player who grew up in Northern Ireland, has gone to Iraq over Thanksgiving the past two years to visit with U.S. troops, and he created a foundation to help wounded soldiers.

"This passage was a metaphor meant to describe how American troops felt about our 43rd president," Feherty said in a statement. "In retrospect, it was inappropriate and unacceptable, and has clearly insulted Speaker Pelosi and Senator Reid, and for that, I apologize.

As for our troops, they know I will continue to do as much as I can for them both at home and abroad."

Feherty has lived in Dallas the past dozen years. Along with working for CBS Sports, he writes a monthly column for Golf magazine and has written four books, the last one titled, "An Idiot for All Season."

CBS Sports distanced itself from Feherty's writing, saying it was "an unacceptable attempt at humor and is not in any way condoned, endorsed or approved" by the network. The PGA Tour also criticized him for an attempt at humor that "went over the line."

CBS is not broadcasting The Players Championship this week. The network resumes its PGA Tour coverage next week in San Antonio with the Valero Texas Open.

Poor Nancy and Harry got their feelings hurt...
I didn't think that ANY of the 'networks' would approve of anybody joking about Pelosi or Reed in ANY way!
Liberals simply have NO sense of humor!

Their treatment of George Bush was far worse than anything David said...

Nice going David!


But it's perfectly OK for the libs to wish Rush Limbaugh was dead!
From The UK Telegraph
What was Wanda Sykes thinking?
Perhaps more to the point, what was President Barack Obama thinking when he laughed and smiled as the comedienne wished Rush Limbaugh dead?

Stupid liberals... They just don't get it do they?
Liberalism Is A Mental Disorder!

Sunday, May 3, 2009

Panic Time for Pelosi...

This article warms the cockels of my heart...

Panic Time for Pelosi
by Jed Babbin

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has had a bad week. Caught between her own involvement in the CIA interrogations now condemned as torture and her party’s inquisitions, Pelosi floundered.

Her fear and frustration have apparently given way to panic after word reached her of the CIA’s reaction to the damage she, President Obama and other Democrats have done to the spy agency in the last three months.

Pelosi -- as I wrote earlier in the week -- was one of the few members of Congress briefed in detail on the harsh interrogation methods and who could have stopped them but didn’t.
Pelosi first said that she wasn’t briefed about waterboarding.

Then she sort of admitted she had, inserting that the CIA only said that they might do it, not that they were going to do it. Which could have been plagiarized from John Kerry’s 2004 circular explanation of his vote for the war in Iraq.

As badly as that hurt Pelosi, what apparently pushed her into a panic was the feedback she and other Democrats are getting from the CIA. Pelosi learned that her actions, and those of President Obama and other Democrats over the past ninety days have so damaged CIA morale that the agency’s ability to function could be in danger.

As a result, two emergency closed-door meetings were called this week on Capitol Hill.

The first meeting, on Tuesday evening, was attended by Pelosi, Intelligence Committee Chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-Tx) and others.

The following night, Pelosi and some or all of the other attendees met with CIA Director Leon Panetta, also behind closed doors.

No Republicans were invited to either meeting which means the Democrats were assessing the damage and deciding how to maneuver their way out from under the responsibility for it. Spin and strategy.

Morale among in the spy agency is so low because of the relentless assault on the CIA in President Obama’s first 100 days.

The first blow to the CIA was his decision to close the terrorist detention facility at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba without any plan on what to do with the 240 dangerous detainees housed there.

Many CIA employees believe these people to be killers, responsible for the deaths of CIA operatives overseas.
Many in the CIA apparently see this as a betrayal.

The Obama administration plan to set some of these people loose in the US was despite CIA objections.

And then came the president’s decision to release the so-called “torture memos” and the disavowal of CIA interrogation methods.

The president’s on-again, off-again promise to not prosecute CIA operatives who had conducted the harsher interrogations has left many in the CIA uncertain of his real intentions. Leaving up to the Attorney General whether to prosecute the Bush-era lawyers who wrote the “torture memos” has added to the already great doubt about the safety and security of CIA interrogators’ jobs, and more.

By the end of the meeting Wednesday, Pelosi, Reyes and Panetta apparently determined that damage control had to begin immediately.

Later Wednesday evening, Reyes sent an unprecedented letter to CIA director Panetta making a sort of apology to the CIA.

Reyes’ cover letter asks Panetta to “…disseminate it to the CIA workforce as soon as possible.” (At this writing, the letter has not yet been distributed.) The letter to CIA employees is a very odd mixture of praise for the CIA and CYA for Reyes.
(Click here to read the letter)

Reyes begins, “In recent days, as the public debate regarding CIA’s interrogation practices has raged, you have been very much in my thoughts,” expressing his “…deep gratitude for the work you do each day.”

But then Reyes retreats into lawyer-isms: “First and foremost, I wholeheartedly support the President’s decision that no CIA officer or contractor will be prosecuted for authorized actions they took in the context of interrogations.”

In other words, if some young prosecutor or Capitol Hill staffer decides you did something unauthorized, you’re sunk.

And then comes the CYA for Reyes: “One important lesson to me from the CIA’s interrogation operations involves congressional oversight. I’m going to examine closely ways in which we can change the law to make our own oversight of the CIA more meaningful; I want to move from mere notification to real discussion.”

The fact that “mere notification” of the interrogation methods was comprised of a virtual tour of them matters not at all: Reyes’ letter says Congress should be held innocent of any wrongdoing.

If CIA morale was bad before the letter, it will be vastly worse after it.

Worst of all is the next sentence: “Good oversight can lead to partnership, and that’s what I am looking to bring about.”

If there’s anything that could possibly make the CIA even less effective than it was before 9-11, that’s it. The nation’s security requires that the CIA be strengthened and more effective, not bogged down with congressional tourism.

And, by the way, what Reyes proposes is unconstitutional because it violates the separation of powers doctrine. Not that Reyes would care. But the prospect of more Congressional involvement is just another morale killer.

Obama’s first 100 days did enormous damage to our entire intelligence community. It’s all too clear that Speaker Pelosi will do much more if she believes it will help her out of the corner she’s in.

Panicked people make mistakes.
Pelosi has made a big one in propelling the inquisition into the CIA interrogations She will make more, and the damage to our intelligence gathering ability may be fatal to many Americans.

Nice goin' Jed!
Lets set the dogs loose on these 'weasels'!

Saturday, May 2, 2009

$540 Shoes At The Food Bank?!

I don't really talk about individuals, because mostly, I don't care much what anybody does with their lives, that is except for politicians and people that have chosen to place themselves in the public eye.

But this latest story about Michelle Obama deserves some attention.

Michelle Obama Wears $540 Designer Sneakers to Feed the Poor
It's a first lady faux pas -- wearing expensive, high-fashion French designer sneakers to a food bank...

"She paired the kicks with a much more reasonably priced cardigan from J. Crew similar to the one she's worn in the past," Watters said. "And quite honestly, the usually well-styled Michelle didn't match. While her over-priced designer sneaks were gray and pink, her sweater was a gold argyle style. A definite fashion faux pas."

According to the New York Daily News, the first lady of style likely got her sneakers through Ikram, the Chicago retailer that usually outfits her.

Obama's style helped catapult her into the 93rd spot of Maxim's "eyeball-searing, fantasy-fulfilling, brain-exploding" Hot 100 list, which was announced Friday.

The first lady's sense of fashion has received considerable media attention. During her trip to Europe last month to accompany President Obama to the G20 summit, her fashion choices and protocol-breaking touch of the Queen of England nearly received as much ink as the summit itself.

I couldn't believe what I had been hearing about her 'fashion sense' and 'how beautiful' she was, and what a stylish person she was!

I thought...
Is this the same Michelle Obama that I had been seeing on the TV?
At the Democratic Convention?
Talking about how much she hated America?

The same Michelle Obama that bragged during the campaign:
"We left corporate America, which is a lot of what we're asking young people to do," she tells the women.
"Don't go into corporate America. You know, become teachers. Work for the community. Be social workers. Be a nurse.
Those are the careers that we need, and we're encouraging our young people to do that.
But if you make that choice, as we did, to move out of the moneymaking industry into the helping industry, then your salaries respond."

The same Michelle Obama, and her husband BHO, that sneered at the McCains and their 7 houses?

Didn't they say... "John McCain has seven homes. There's just a fundamental gap of understanding between John McCain's world and what people are going through every single day here in America."

"You don't have to be a Nobel Prize-laureate economist, you just have to have a little bit of a sense of what ordinary people are going through to understand that we can't afford eight more years or four more years or one more year of the failed economic policies that George Bush has put in place."

So now it's cool and fashionable to wear $500 sneakers to schlep down to the food bank and help feed the hungry, the starving, the poor, the destitute?

Excuse me?
Talk about a fundamental gap!
What the hell was she thinking?

Well of course we know what she was thinking, don't we...

She's made it! ... and YOU haven't!
So she's going to flaunt her new wealth and fame and there's not a damn thing you can do about it!
So there!

I never did understand why Soooo many people were fawning over this woman!
With her severe underbite, her near lantern jaw, that huge rear-end, those thunder-thighs and a sense of fashion that resembles my neighbor's prideful display when he makes his poodle wear those awful sweater vests in the winter... it's simply quite puzzeling!
And now they're showing off those huge, flat, feet!

This woman is a total disgrace! Fashion faux pas is an UNDERSTATEMENT!
She shouldn't be allowed to leave the house!

But, I suspect that the Obama's have a totally different view of the world than most Americans do.

They DESERVE ALL they have because of their color and their hard struggle...

It's YOU that don't deserve the $540 shoes! You haven't earned the right to be a goofy looking first lady flaunting her wealth for the poor!

You should be ashamed of your self Mrs. BHO!
You are an embarrassment to America!

Someone needs to take out the 'trailer trash'!
Hopefully, America will only endure 4 years of this!

Friday, May 1, 2009

He Wouldn't Lie To Me... Would He?

I sure like the way Ollie thinks...
He certainly has a way with words!

Lie to Me
by Oliver North

WASHINGTON -- On Wednesday evening, all but one of America's television networks blew off their prime-time programs and dutifully trotted off to the White House to cover an hourlong self-congratulatory news conference celebrating the first 100 days of the Obama administration.

Only Fox kept regularly scheduled programming -- the network's new hit "Lie to Me." ABC, CBS and NBC should have used the same title for the O-Team's news conference.

The Fox "reality drama" drew a million more American viewers than any network airing Mr. Obama's version of "Lie to Me."

Those who tuned in to the White House coverage were treated to an astounding defense of profligate spending, a litany of broken promises and a deceitful denial of foreign policy failures.

The fawning network executives who decided to forgo an estimated $10 million in ad revenues to cover the hundredth-night carnival from the East Room have to hope their shareholders don't fire them all.

Ever mindful of what's "playing" in front of the American people, Mr. Obama led off, as he does consistently, with the crisis du jour. This time, it was the swine flu, which members of the O-Team and the media have labeled a "possible pandemic."
On Wednesday evening our physician in chief assured us that he is doing everything necessary "to closely monitor the emergency cases of the H1N1 flu virus throughout the United States" and that our "government is taking the utmost precautions and preparations."

After noting that he has "requested an immediate $1.5 billion in emergency funding from Congress to support our ability to monitor and track this virus and to build our supply of antiviral drugs and other equipment," the good doctor advised, "Keep your hands washed; cover your mouth when you cough; stay home from work if you're sick; and keep your children home from school if they're sick."

His flu-prevention prescription is reminiscent of guidance during last year's campaign on saving fuel by keeping the tires on our cars properly inflated. Presumably, someone at the White House's press office is preparing a news release reminding us all to eat our green leafy vegetables.

The next item in the teleprompter was kudos to Congress for passing the 2010 O-Team budget.

Though it passed the House of Representatives without a single Republican vote, Mr. Obama gushed about "how gratified (he was) that the House and the Senate passed a budget resolution today that will serve as an economic blueprint for this nation's future."
If that "blueprint" statement is valid, our nation's economic future will be very bleak indeed.

Though he claimed that "this budget builds on the steps we've taken over the last 100 days to move this economy from recession to recovery and ultimately to prosperity" and asserted that he "has already saved or created over 150,000 jobs," there is scant evidence any of that is true.

Rep. Mike Pence, chairman of the House Republican Conference, described the funding measure as "the most fiscally irresponsible budget in American history."

Congress should be doing what every American family is doing: cutting expenses, finding within themselves the faith and, yes, the courage to get through these times with sacrifice. Instead, here in Washington, it's more government, more spending, more debt and more taxes.

The "reporters" attending the news conference may be forgiven for not having had time to do the math, but the unprecedented spending in this budget is mind-boggling by any standard.

In the 100 days being feted, the national debt has soared from $10.6 trillion to $11.2 trillion, an increase of $558.4 billion. If this pace continues, Mr. Obama will succeed in adding more than $2 trillion to the debt in his first year in office alone, a staggering $36,569 for every living American.

Though Mr. Obama claims to be "creating jobs" and "helping Americans keep their homes," reality says otherwise.

Despite spending $235 billion of our tax dollars bailing out financial institutions, there have been 27 bank failures in the United States in the past 100 days.

According to his own Department of Labor, more than 2 million Americans have lost their jobs since he moved into the Oval Office. The Obama administration's own figures reveal that during its tenure, 908,666 American families have lost their homes to foreclosure.

The "Lie to Me" theme continued in Mr. Obama's description of his foreign policy "successes" in his first 100 days.

His assertion that "we have rejected the false choice between our security and our ideals by closing the detention center at Guantanamo Bay and banning torture without exception" can only be described as "Clintonesque."

The truth is Gitmo is still open, because no other country -- not even Saudi Arabia, to whose king he curtsied, or Venezuela, whose dictator's palm he stroked -- wants to take the terrorists detained there.

Right On, Ollie!
Likely, we'll continue to hear more 'lies' from this charlatan until he leaves town!

I wonder if Obama is taking credit for keeping jobs by making government bigger and not laying off government employees?

And, I'd like to know...
Just where are those NEW jobs he created ???