So What's Next For Brett?

I'm completely shocked about what's been going on with Brett Farve and his relationship with the GreenBay Packers.

What the hell were the Packers thinking? This should have been a very simple situation and the packers have turned it into a nightmare scenario for Brett, their fans and all the rest of us that follow NFL football.

After last season, Brett was tired and spent, so when he was asked about his future he said, "I really don't know. Talk to me in a few months. Right now, I'm leaning toward retiring."

That was good enough for me. The guy needed time to make an informed, thoughtful decision. But the Packers have a Professional Football Team to run. They need answers about Farves future so they can plan for next season.
Fair enough.
What's the best way to deal with this kind of situation?
Do you have any suggestions?

My thoughts were this: The packers needed answers, but Brett wasn't ready to give a definitive answer. Something has to give.

I felt the best way to get resolution was for the Packers to give Brett a deadline. Say, like May 1, 2008. Maybe something like, OK Brett, we need to have a decision by the first of May so we can move forward. You have until 1 May at Midnight to either apply for reinstatement to the club, submit a request in writing that you want to be traded, or formally indicate that you are going to officially retire.

Simple huh? Play with the Packers, request a trade, or retire.

So how did we get to this fiasco we're witnessing in the media?

Terry Bradshaw had this to say about it...
What the heck are the Packers thinking?
There has to be more to this whole Brett Favre story than we really know right now. Because how is it possible that one of the greatest quarterbacks to ever play the game, maybe the greatest Packer ever, isn't given at least a chance to compete for his old job?

I have the feeling that Brett must have been pressured into retiring. When I retired, I was done. I couldn't throw. My body said I was done. I had no choice and never looked back, but Brett had a great year last season. I know he threw that interception against the Giants at the end of the NFC title game, but that isn't enough to say he's a declining player. I don't how you can label him a loser because they lost to the Giants and he didn't play well in the second half. As I recall, Tom Brady lost to the Giants, too.
I was at the Hall of Fame luncheon today in Canton and most of the former players I talked to thought it was insulting that the Packers are offering him some marketing deal worth $20 million not to play. How dare they do that simply to keep him from playing?
The other thing is: How can Packers coach Mike McCarthy really believe that Aaron Rodgers is better than Brett because of how Rodgers has performed in seven-on-seven drills in mini-camps? That's how he won the job — on the practice field!
What's wrong with allowing Brett to come back and at least compete for his old job? Let the fans and coaches see who is the better quarterback. And if they are so worried about letting him compete in Green Bay, then let Brett go play somewhere else even if it means Minnesota.

A lot of great quarterbacks — Johnny Unitas, Joe Namath, Bert Jones and Joe Montana — finished their careers with another team. So what Brett is asking to do — to play somewhere else — is not that unusual. It didn't work out for all of those guys, but they still wanted to play and I think that's every player's right to make that decision.

I don't know how this is going to end. I still can't believe that the Packers aren't going to allow performance on the practice field, in training camp, to decide who gets the play. In the NFL, I thought the best player played.

The Packers have a real dilemma on their hands. If Brett doesn't take this money, still asks to play for the Vikings and Green Bay doesn't let him, that franchise jeopardizes its relationship with one of its greatest players.

I mean, if Brett leaves the game angry, he may stay away from Green Bay forever. The hope is that within five years, he will be going into the Hall of Fame and the Packers would want to be a big part of that. But right now, it looks like the Packers have a lot of patching up to do.

Then theres this from Jay Glazer ...
McCarthy: Favre not ready to play for Packers

The bond between Brett Farve and the Packers appears to be broken beyond repair.
Speaking publicly for the first time about his series of meetings with Favre, Green Bay head coach Mike McCarthy said the quarterback was not in the "proper mindset" to continue as a member of the team.
"We talked about everything that has happened since this whole process started," McCarthy said. "We rehashed all the different things that's gone on. We agreed and disagreed. Our whole focus was, was he a member of our football team and where was his mind at. He was not at the proper mindset to be part of our football team."

Even with the chance to win his starting job back potentially on the table, McCarthy said Favre couldn't seem to get past emotional wounds that were opened as tensions mounted in recent weeks.
"The football team's moving forward," McCarthy said. "The train has left the station, whatever analogy you want. He needs to jump on the train and let's go. Or, if we can't get past things that have happened, I have to keep the train moving."

But asked specifically if Favre had played his final game with the Packers, McCarthy tiptoed around the subject.

"There's no decision made," McCarthy said. "We talked about speaking again tonight."
Even if the decision isn't yet official, McCarthy appeared to be comfortable proceeding with Aaron Rodgers as his starting quarterback.
"Aaron Rodgers has done everything right," McCarthy said. "I understand the attention he gets for being in his position. I think that he has the tools — mentally, physically, emotionally. Who's had better training than Aaron Rodgers in being an NFL QB? I believe in Aaron because he's very talented."

After meeting for more than five hours Monday night, Favre and McCarthy met for another four hours Tuesday morning. Shortly after that meeting concluded, Favre left Lambeau Field before the Packers began their Tuesday afternoon practice.

But the discussions didn't stop there.

FOXSports.com learned that multiple Packers executives continued to meet with Favre off-site in an attempt to resolve the situation.

Favre has told the team that he wants to be traded to either Minnesota or Chicago. But according to sources, it is believed the Bears have no interest and the Vikings appear to be a long shot as well.

However, the Buccaneers and Jets have been interested in obtaining Favre since the saga began and sources from both teams have told FOXSports.com that their interest has not wavered.
The continued discussions came less than a day after a marathon session of meetings between Favre, McCarthy and GM Ted Thompson Monday night, the details of which were first reported by FOXSports.com.

During those meetings, Favre and McCarthy agreed that an open quarterback competition would be an unwanted distraction for the team, essentially agreeing that Aaron Rodgers would be the team's starting quarterback. Favre also told McCarthy and Thompson that he did not want to ruin team chemistry.

The talks were largely amicable, but the sides remain stalemated over a possible destination for the three-time MVP, with Favre very much wanting to remain within the division and the team hoping to find another option.

Did Favre not feel wanted or welcome enough by the Packers?
"That's part of the issue with him, quite frankly," McCarthy said. "And listening to him talk about that, you respect his opinion. And frankly, I told him, I said, 'I'll take responsibility because I have a voice in the building.' I never thought he truly was going to play. I thought he was emotionally driven for other reasons."

McCarthy said Favre was "very convincing" in their conversations about his desire to play Monday night and Tuesday. But McCarthy still seemed to have reservations about Favre's commitment to preparation.

Would Favre continue to stay at Lambeau late at night to study film, a major factor in his success last season?
"That was a very good question for him," McCarthy said. "He's in a tough spot right now."
McCarthy also didn't seem convinced that Favre was thinking clearly about his future.
"He has a lot going through his head, and I think he's emotional," McCarthy said. "And just talking to him, he's in a tough spot."

So, of course, are McCarthy and Thompson. Correctly or not, they might end up being seen by fans as the men who drove Favre out of Green Bay.

"That's not a good feeling, but I don't view it that way," McCarthy said. "I can only trust the truth. I've been part of a lot of conversations, and I don't feel that's the case."
Rodgers, meanwhile, stuck to his mantra of not worrying about things he can't control.
"I just know we were out at practice today, and he wasn't there, and I'm the starter," Rodgers said. "So that's where we're going right now."

Speaking to reporters after Tuesday's practice, Rodgers stood just a few feet away from a locker with a "FAVRE" nameplate above it, stocked with shoulderpads and other equipment. It hadn't been used — and now might never be.

Cornerback Charles Woodson had a hard time imagining the Packers trading such an iconic player. "Everything went kind of sour a few weeks or a month back, but you never felt like it would get to the point or to the talks of him actually being traded," Woodson said. "I felt once he stepped back in here, he would be the quarterback. Him not being here today, I guess management has a different route. So at that point, we've got to go out and do our job."

What a mess! The packers surely dropped the ball and have nearly ruined the reputation of one of the greatest quarterbacks to have ever play the game! Packer Management needs to visit the Betty Ford Center to be deprogammed from stupid.

So what's next? Alex Marvez has this to say...
The chants of "Bring Back Brett" and "We Want Favre" resonated from fans throughout Tuesday's Packers practice.

Sorry, disgruntled Cheeseheads. It's not happening. Not unless Brett Favre changes his mind — once again.

Packers coach Mike McCarthy basically shut the door on Favre's potential return during a Tuesday news conference. After meeting with Favre for more than eight hours the past two days, McCarthy said the quarterback still wanted to play football. It's just not with the team where he has forged a Hall of Fame career over the past 16 seasons because of the soap opera that has unfolded with Packers management this offseason.

That means it's highly unlikely Favre will ever wear a Packers uniform again, even though he was officially reinstated to the team Monday.
"He was not at the proper mindset to be part of our football team," McCarthy said.

So what's next in the Favre saga? Here are the most likely options and the odds of them occurring.

1. A trade to Tampa Bay
Why it could happen: The Bucs make the most sense on many levels. Tampa Bay coach Jon Gruden runs a West Coast offense that Favre should have an easy time learning, considering he played in similar systems throughout his Packers tenure. Favre and Gruden have familiarity from when the former was a Packers offensive assistant in 1993 and 1994. Tampa Bay has the salary cap space to accommodate Favre's $12 million base salary. Favre would be playing for what would become a legitimate Super Bowl contender, and even have a shot for revenge against the Packers during a Sept. 28 matchup.

Why it might not: Green Bay is reticent to trade Favre within the NFC. Favre also may balk at any trade in hopes of trying to negotiate his own free-agent deal by forcing a Packers release. Favre, though, doesn't have much leverage on that front. If he should refuse to report after being dealt, Favre's new team would have the right to try and recoup part of his signing bonus paid by the Packers. Tampa Bay did just that with quarterback Jake Plummer. He was forced to refund $3.5 million when deciding to stay retired, rather than play for the Bucs after being traded by Denver.
Odds: 2-to-1

2. A trade to the New York Jets
Why it could happen: So far, the only viable non-NFC trade option for Favre is New York. The Jets aren't considered the same caliber Super Bowl contender as Tampa Bay, especially playing in the same division as New England. But New York could make a playoff run after upgrading its personnel this offseason through trades and wild free-agent spending. New York's biggest question mark is at quarterback, where two ho-hum candidates — Chad Pennington and Kellen Clemens — are battling for the starting spot.

Why it might not: Making another huge financial investment in a player like Favre might be too much for New York to fit under its salary cap. Favre also has no history with head coach Eric Mangini or offensive coordinator Brian Schottenheimer. If the Jets don't feel Favre would be excited to play for them, why invite what could become a major headache?
Odds: 4-to-1.

3. Retirement
Why it could happen: Favre isn't speaking much, so it's difficult getting inside his head. But McCarthy said Favre was going through "a very stressful time for him and his family." Favre may ultimately decide that playing elsewhere just isn't worth it and retire once more.
Why it might not: McCarthy sensed that Favre wants to play in 2008. And since Favre successfully applied for NFL reinstatement while spending time preparing for a comeback, why stop now with the regular season roughly a month away?
Odds: 20-to-1

4. A trade to Minnesota
Why it could happen: Favre would green-light a deal that would reunite him with Vikings offensive coordinator Darrell Bevell, who coached him previously with the Packers. Favre would have familiarity with the opposition playing in the NFC North and get two regular season shots at the Packers.
Why it might not: Packers general manager Ted Thompson has said he wouldn't trade Favre within the division. The Vikings would have to offer considerable trade compensation for Thompson to reconsider his stance.
Odds: 50-to-1

5. The Packers release Favre
Why it could happen: If unable to receive adequate trade compensation, the Packers may decide that cutting Favre is the best option for future relations. Green Bay President Mark Murphy was so concerned about Favre's long-term relationship with the Packers that he reportedly offered a $20-million package for the quarterback to stay retired. From a business standpoint, Favre is a commodity whose merchandising value will remain strong as long as he continues to embrace the Packers, especially as his eventual Hall of Fame induction approaches. Granting Favre his wish for freedom would ensure he stays on good terms with the franchise.
Why it might not: The Packers don't want to let Favre join another team — especially a division rival like Minnesota — without receiving trade compensation.
Odds: 100-to-1

So there you have it. That's the lastest in the saga of Bret Farve's semi-retirement/renewed desire to play somewhere/and reluctance be a GreenBay $20 Million flunky.
I guess we'll see what happens soon?
All I can say is thay I hope I get to see that magnificent arm again and I hope he can keep the 'iron man' streak alive for another season. What a talent. What a really nice guy. It'd be a shame to see him go out with all this politically motivated, my ass is bigger than your ass!

A new Kind Of Politics?

At the beginning of this election season, Sen. Obama promised us that he would run a new kind of campaign, with a new kind of politics, for a new world. Sen McCain said he would not stoop to crass remarks and dirty mudslinging, and in fact has renounced several attempts to disparage the Democrat Candidate.

But, frankly I just don't see this happening. It's traditional that the candidates try to cut the knees from the other and bury him in as much mud as possible.

The American people might say that they don't want this, but remember, these are the same folks that watch those reality shows where someone is trashed and thrown off the show and the same folks that watch automobile races to watch the massive 30 car wrecks!

Here's a recent article by LIZ SIDOTI at Townhall.com
For all the talk about John McCain's hard-hitting politics, Barack Obama is hardly innocent.
Both candidates and their allies are fully engaged in creating unflattering caricatures of each other that they hope will stick in voters' minds for the next three months.

Obama and his Democratic backers argue that the Republican is negative and offers nothing new, while McCain and his Republicans claim the Democrat is presumptuous and ill-prepared.
"They're cynical," Obama recently charged of McCain and his followers, adding: "They want to distract people from talking about the real issues."

One day earlier, the Democrat issued a fundraising appeal accusing McCain of taking "the low road" and stooping to "the same old smears" by launching "a desperate new set of attacks" each day.

McCain disputed that. "This is a very respectful campaign. I don't think our campaign is negative in the slightest," he said. His comments came the same week he agreed with a top aide's charge that Obama had "played the race card" and rolled out a TV commercial that mocking Obama as "the biggest celebrity in the world" and asking: "Is he ready to lead?"

Brutal, certainly; effective, probably _ and that's why competitive contests typically end up in the gutter as each side works to draw contrasts with the other.

Nevermind that at the outset of the general election Obama and McCain each expressed a desire for a courteous campaign focused on issues and free of the brass-knuckle politics that have marked _ and marred _ presidential races.

These days, each skewers his opponent with regularity _ and even zeal.
The Obama campaign argues that he's drawing distinctions based on policy, while McCain has gotten personal by comparing the Illinois senator to lightweight celebrities and stoking the race issue. McCain's campaign defends its tactics, contends issues of experience, judgment and readiness are fair game, and maintains that Obama brought up race first.

This week, Obama stepped up his efforts to link McCain to President Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney _ and their associations with oil companies.

"McCain has taken a page out of the Cheney playbook," Obama said Tuesday as he blasted McCain on energy _ even though he, not McCain, voted for the Bush-backed 2005 energy bill that Cheney played a major role in drafting. Obama also unveiled a TV ad suggesting that oil companies had bought off McCain. It said: "After one president in the pocket of big oil, we can't afford another."

I thought Obama was promising a "new kind of politics"?
This doesn't sould like a new kind of politics to me! It sounds like the same ol', same ol'...

Obama is merely using fancy words to trick and confuse the uneducated.
There's absolutely nothing new about his tactics.

He's been on the Bush Bashing bus from the very beginning. He's called McCain 'another Bush'. He's said that electing McCain would just bring a 3rd Bush term. This is new politics?

Certainly, there's a difference in tone and style between the two candidates.
McCain is blunt and can be snarky, particularly when he doesn't think much of his target.
The Arizona senator recently asserted that Obama "would rather lose a war in order to win a political campaign," and belittled him for the "audacity of hopelessness" in his Iraq policies. At one point, McCain said: "Sen. Obama told the American people what he thought you wanted to hear. I told you the truth."

One McCain commercial took issue with Obama's canceled visit with injured troops _ the ad was widely debunked _ while another used starlets Britney Spears and Paris Hilton to poke fun at Obama's worldwide following and suggest he's little more than empty suit. Separately, a Web video chided him as "The One."

Conversely, Obama is more stealthy as he attacks rhetorically.
He typically says he respects McCain. Then, he assails the Republican with a lighthearted, commonsense _ and sometimes sarcastic _ pitch and a smile.

On Monday, Obama quoted McCain lamenting the failure by Washington politicians to fix the country's dependence on foreign oil and said: "What Sen. McCain neglected to mention was that during those 30 years, he was in Washington for 26 of them! And in all that time, he did little to reduce our dependence on foreign oil."

Obama then ran down a laundry list of McCain votes and added: "He's been a part of that failure." But, Obama said, after "after years of inaction, and in the face of public frustration over rising gas prices," McCain is offering what amounts to an unworkable solution both in the short term and long term.

The Democrat didn't say it explicitly but that was a suggestion of political expediency on McCain's part.

He also took McCain to task for a comment about the "psychological" relief a gas tax holiday would bring to consumers and added: "We simply cannot pretend, as Sen. McCain does, that we can drill our way out of this problem."

Where does it end? Well, Obama will get nasty and McCain will finally retaliate. Ultimately it will be just like every other campaign, complete with inuendo, accuasations, threats and mistruths. It will be up to us, the voters to try and sort it all out.

Again it will be our choosing the one that smells the least like a pig pen.

Is Race The Issue In This Election?

Barack Obama has made a mistake, and his campaign knows it. For days, his online supporters have been pretending that an ad comparing Obama to bubble-headed celebrities had a racial subtext (the alleged subtext being that he wants to bed them).

Obama decided that it was time to play the race card again. “Nobody thinks that Bush or McCain have a real answer for the challenges we face. So what they’re going to try to do is make you scared of me. You know, he’s not patriotic enough. He’s got a funny name. You know, he doesn’t look like all those other presidents on those dollar bills, you know. He’s risky. That’s essentially the argument they’re making.”

Obama has gotten away with this despicable assertion before. At a Florida fundraiser in June, he again suggested that nobody could have any rational reason for opposing him.

So: “They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?” Neither the press nor the Republicans protested.

What about The Race Card?

People are saying that race is not an issue in this election.
I believe that sentiment couldn't be further from the truth.

Race is THE ISSUE in this election. How can anyone consider the Democrat Candidate without considering his race?

Lets examine what we know about the candidate.

We know right away that he is a black man because his skin color.
He is of the Negro Race.
He has absolutely no experience on the national level.
He’s only been a US Senator for a couple of years. He has no constituency.
He says he’s from Chicago, but he wasn’t raised there. He didn’t go to school there. He just moved there for a job - to 'organize people'.
He is naive about foreign policy. He wants to actually sit down with the likes of Ahmenidajad, Kim il Sung, and Chavez to discuss our relationship. These people are the heads of radical regimes! They aren’t our friends. They hate us! They have always hated us. They will continue to hate us. Talking with them face to face will change nothing and merely give them validation and an opportunity for massive propaganda.

His experience and naiveté alone would usually disqualify him from holding the highest office in the land. So why are so many people jumping on the Obama bandwagon?

He won the nomination virtually without any platform or position on any important issue. The only thing we heard him mention was ‘hope’ and ‘change’. What the heck does that mean? Pretty vague don’t ya think?

So what is it that attracts so many people to this guy?

For one thing, the Mainstream Media has been very successful at smearing President Bush and many folks that are easily swayed, have fallen for their propaganda.

Those people want change at any price.
They really don’t care who or what, just as long as it’s change!

For another, consider white guilt.

Obama is a black man before all else. The liberal left is entrenched in their own guilt and this election, with their black candidate on the ticket, gives them a way to preach redemption for our past transgressions.

Oh yes, white guilt is still very powerful.

Remember, in the early days of our country we owned slaves. We owned black people. We bought and sold human beings that were brought to our shores by the Dutch, the Portuguese and other slave traders from the African Continent.

That was a very bad thing. Slavery is a very bad thing. To enslave humans, to buy and sell them like so much chattel is a very, very bad thing.

Most Americans are extremely sorry about that chapter in our nation’s history. Most Americans would like to try and forget that our ancestors were so cruel, so insensitive, so brutal. But that will not happen anytime soon.

People like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton make it their business, yes it is a business, to make sure we don’t forget our past.

Their ‘business’ is to keep racism alive and thriving in America.
Without a megaphone and a soap box, Jackson and Sharpton would need to look for a real job.

Sharpton and Jackson will stand on any street corner and shout with their megaphone, that America should feel guilt and shame about what they have done to the black man. That America needs to repair the damage done to the black man. America needs to pay the black man for all those years of slavery and repression. They keep shouting that the black man ‘is owed’!

Oh, those two will never let us forget!

So yes, this election is very much about race. Whether we like it or not, we’re going to have to talk about race relations, discuss racial tension, scream about racial injustice, and fight about who is owed what!

And this election is very much about guilt. Everyone applauds what the candidate has been able to accomplish with his life, but how does he qualify for the Presidency?

Because he is a black man, that's how.
Because White America can finally put to rest, those demons of bigotry and slavery. But, are those qualifications enough to raise him up?

This is just the beginning. Mark my words, race will be the central focus of this election, and it may very well disintegrate into more hatred and violence.

But, Obama is trying to diffuse the race issue by casting the first stone and trying to shrug it off with a casual flair.
As earlier... He says, “They’re trying to scare you because I’m a black man”.
He says, “I don’t look like those other guys on the dollar bill”.

Hell, he’s not even President yet and he has the audacity to put himself in the same company as some of our greatest men! That arrogance alone will be enough to anger some people. It angers me!

But that’s his way of diverting attention from the issue of race.

And that is his greatest mistake. He believes he is being proactive about playing the race card, and in reality he, himself, is injecting race into the campaign by trying to accuse the McCain camp of pointing out his color!

Obama is saying, “I’m the black guy in the contest, don’t let the other guy point it out. I’ll do it for you!”
In my opinion… big mistake!
We’ll see if this backfires or not…

As Obama tries to distance himself from the Jacksons and the Sharptons and talk about a new kind of politics, he says he doesn’t want any Washington ‘insiders’ on his staff. He wants to create a new atmosphere in Washington and stop all the divisive wrangling of the past.

He may be successful putting distance between himself and those two vultures, but he will need the Black Vote to get elected. That means he will eventually need to reach out to blacks in a way that they have not seen before.

Do black folks really trust this guy?
20% say they will vote for him solely because of his race.

OK, some will vote for him just because of his skin color, but he needs to prove that he is ‘black enough’ to represent them and their struggle.
Remember the ‘Magic Negro' comments?

I don’t think he will succeed. He sure is a smooth talker, but he doesn’t have the right stuff. He will make whites angry and will not create the trust he needs in the black community.

But he sure is audacious!
How dare he assume we have already elected him! And how dare he assume he will end up being one of the ‘great presidents of all time’!
What an ego!
This is the attitude that many old Southerners would classify as ‘uppity’!
And that’s not good.

Obama is treading on thin ice and doesn’t even know it! He really believes all those things ‘his people’ keep telling him. That he is the lord messiah. That he is the one we’ve been waiting for. That this is his time in the sun!

And don’t believe for one minute that these are all his ideas! Heck no. This guy is no 'deep thinker'. He does what he’s told to do. He says what he's told to say. He goes where he’s told to go. He’s a puppet.
And, I think a lot of people realize that.

But, he’s a black man running for the Presidency of the United States.
That in itself is quite an achievement, but Obama is determined to tell us all that he is BLACK!

So, yes, I believe that race is the single most important factor in choosing this man over any other.
And, this may be the only chance for White Liberal Guilt to be avenged.
But, is the color of his skin reason enough to elect him?

Will he be America’s first black President?

If he is, his color will ALWAYS be discussed. His race, the fact that he is a Negro, will ALWAYS be the single most important issue of his presidency.

Anthrax Anyone?

Everybody remembers the anthrax scare, right?
Right after the September 2001 Attacks, seemingly random people were receiving letters filled with the deadly stuff and all of America was wondering... Who's Next!

Well, it seems that this scientist was a little 'wacky' and was spending waaaaay too much time in the lab. He was working on a vaccine or treatment for anthrax contamination and sent out the substance to see if his creation would work!

What was going on in this guy's head?

Bruce Ivins arrived in July at a group counseling session at a psychiatric center here in his hometown with a startling announcement: Facing the prospect of murder charges, he had bought a bulletproof vest and a gun as he contemplated killing his co-workers at the nearby U.S. Army research laboratory.

"He was going to go out in a blaze of glory, and he was going to take everybody out there with him," said a social worker in a transcript of a hearing at which she sought a restraining order against Ivins after his threats.

The homicidal rant represented the final stages of psychological decline by Ivins that ended when he apparently committed suicide Tuesday as it became clear that he was a prime suspect in the anthrax attacks that further terrorized Americans in the weeks after Sept. 11, 2001.
For more than three decades, Ivins had worked with some of the world's most dangerous pathogens and viruses, trying to find cures in case they might someday be used as a weapon.

Now he was being questioned about his possible role as the culprit in the worst biological attack in the United States.

To some of his longtime colleagues and neighbors, it was a startling and inexplicable turn of events for a churchgoing, family-oriented germ researcher known for his jolly disposition - the guy who did a juggling act at community events and composed satiric ballads he played on guitar or piano to departing co-workers.

Let's hope this is the end of this mess...

The Presumptious Nominee?

This guy Obama is really starting to bother me.
Does he want to be President of The United States ...
... or President of The World?

Why does he go to Europe and the Middle East to deliver campaign speeches? Is it to merely bolster his so called foreign policy 'credentials'? Or is he running for some other office?

It is to con us into believing he actually knows these foreign leaders?
That he actually knows how to deal with them?

Is it to con the rest of the world into believing he is the ‘great illuminator’?
That he is going to bring 'hope' and 'change' to America?

Why did he promise to ‘re-make the world’?

Addressing more than 200,000 elated Europeans massed in Berlin at twilight, presumptive Democratic nominee Barack Obama promised Thursday that he would work to unite Christians, Muslims and Jews in a safer, more united world. His 27-minute speech at the gold-topped Victory Column was interrupted by applause at least 30 times, with occasional audience chants of “O-ba-MA!” Billed as a speech about Transatlantic relations, it turned out to be a manifesto for the planet, with an appeal to “the burdens of global citizenship.”

Local authorities said the crowd was more than 200,000 — triple Obama's previous record of 70,000 in Portland, Ore.Reaching out to skeptics back home, he heralded “the dream of freedom” and declared firmly: “I love America.”


OK, fine. Is he the President yet?
No… So what is all this about?

Is he an American or something else? He says he’s a citizen of the world…

Barack Obama’s speech Thursday in Germany may have grabbed the attention of the crowd of 200,000 with its outline of his world view, but his introduction was enough to catch attention back home.
“I come to Berlin as so many of my countrymen have come before, although tonight, I speak to you not as a candidate for president, but as a citizen — a proud citizen of the United States, and a fellow citizen of the world”...

Well that’s just great.
What about our country?
What about the good ol’ US of A?

“In Europe, the view that America is part of what has gone wrong in our world, rather than a force to help us make it right, has become all too common”...

So he goes abroad and paints America as being the bad guy?
He tells everybody that we're the problem?

Who does this guy think he is?

Where does this guy get off on campaigning for the highest office in the land, in a foreign country, months before the election as if he's already The President, and puts us down in the process?
How presumptuous of him!

Are the Germans going to elect him? Are the Israelis?
No! Americans will elect him… or not!

I’m terribly offended that a presidential candidate would go to a foreign land to campaign like this.
It’s none of their business.
It’s none of his business.
It’s our business.
It’s America’s business.

This guy is not the presumptive nominee...
He's the presumptious nominee!!!

Let The Bailout Begin!

President Bush signed into law on Wednesday a huge package of housing legislation that included broad authority for the Treasury Department to safeguard the nation’s two largest mortgage finance companies and a plan to help hundreds of thousands of troubled borrowers avoid losing their homes.

I can’t tell you how angry I am about this!
We do need to protect the big banks, but bailing out these other greedy jerks shouldn't be part of the deal!

All those folks, those speculators, those pretend investors, those greedy SOBs, have been let off the hook!

When their adjustable rate mortgage(ARM) adjusted to 10% and higher, they began to whine and moan! When their interest only loan came due they whined louder! When their back loaded 2nd and 3rd mortgages started piling up interest and penalties they moaned even louder!

Then, as the Real Estate market slowed and inventory began increasing and prices fell, they knew they would have a difficult time selling and realizing any profit at all. They were doomed!

After they had spent all the equity in their home by using it as an ATM, they saw the handwriting on the wall!

They'd been whining and complaining for months. It wasn't doing any good, they couldn't sell, so, they simply stopped paying their mortgages!

But, while they were complaining and crying to anyone and everyone who would listen, Sen. Charles Schumer couldn't pass up the opportunity to get in on the act. His sceptical comments about the management of the banks caused a run on IndyMac!

An important angle in the IndyMac failure that may get lost in ominous headlines tonight and tomorrow: federal regulators pointedly cited U.S. Sen. Charles Schumer, D-N.Y., in explaining the bank's failure. In simple language, federal regulators blamed Schumer for a run on the bank.

These idiots have caused a great deal of concern and some very serious problems in the entire mortgage banking industry! - In the entire housing industry! - In the entire country!
This is going to affect EVERYBODY!

"The law authorizes the Treasury to rescue the mortgage finance giants, Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, should they verge on collapse, potentially by spending tens of billions in federal monies. Together, the companies own or guarantee nearly half of the nation’s $12 trillion in mortgages.

Partly to accommodate the rescue plan for the mortgage companies, the bill raises the national debt ceiling to $10.6 trillion, an increase of $800 billion. The bill also creates significant liabilities and risks for taxpayers, that are virtually impossible to calculate.

“We look forward to put in place new authorities to improve confidence and stability in markets, and to provide better oversight for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,” Mr. Fratto said. “The Federal Housing Administration will begin to implement new policies intended to keep more deserving American families in their homes.”

A half-dozen top advisers to the president, including the Treasury secretary, Henry M. Paulson Jr., who was the leading advocate of the legislation in the administration attended the signing. But it was not a particularly auspicious occasion given the precarious state of the nation’s financial system, and the pressure that Mr. Bush came under to sign a bill that contained provisions he had opposed.

Though the legislation was the product of months of intensive work by lawmakers in both parties and has been hailed as the most aggressive intervention by the government into the housing market in more than a generation, perhaps since the New Deal, no members of Congress were invited to the signing."

At least the signing wasn't the usual 'big show' and was a low key affair.
I'd be embarrassed too George!

I am totally shocked that President Bush caved on this. He had promised all along that he would veto any such legislation. His reversal has truly saddened me.

It tells the tale of woe that I thought would never be told.
That the Government will support you and yours for as long as necessary.
That the Government will assume all the risks in your new venture - that you no longer need worry about paying back that marginal loan on that risky investment.
Don't worry - the taxpayers will bail you out!

"Some experts have said that the law was wrong-headed in its effort to retain the hybrid nature of the mortgage finance giants, which are private companies with publicly traded stock, but which now have an explicit guarantee of help from the government — an arrangement that critics say privatizes the profits but socializes the risk and any losses."

Oh, these 'whiners' thought they were so clever.
They would buy a house that would continue to appreciate the way it had for the last several years and they would make a killing.

They thought they could play the real estate market and make a bundle.
They thought they knew how to read the market and would have plenty of time to sell and get out.

They thought they would sell this house, buy another and continue to move up in price until they had reached their ultimate goal of owning a million dollar house while only paying for a $200,000 house. They thought they were soooooo savvy!

Just who did they think they were? Rockerfeller? Trump?

Most of those ‘investor types’ are the folks we are ‘bailing out’ with this bill. Add the corrupt management at Freddie and Fannie and you have a FINE mess!

We are paying! You and I are paying! The taxpayers are paying! ... for their failed gamble.
We’re bailing out the ‘players’, the speculators, the less than smart investor, the corrupt loan officers, the mismanaged mortgage office... all those people that made all those terrible, risky decisions.

We're not bailing out regular folks that maybe lost their job or had an unfortunate situation where they couldn't work - NO! These people knew the risks and went ahead anyway! And, now, they're getting off scott free!

This is a very bad bill!

The Redeemer Commeth

Why is this Obama guy even being considered for the Presidency?
He has no experience, no credentials, no constituency.
How did he become the nominee for the Democrat Party?
Why has he enjoyed all this support, this ‘mania’, even though he a complete unknown?

Is he really smart?
I don't think he is, but what do others believe?
Obama was the President of the Harvard Law Review for a year.
You're supposed to be very smart, very intelligent, to hold that post.
This is a comment from Atlas Shrugs, on Obama's qualifications:
We will begin with the first and most obvious sign of intelligence - grades.
Obama doesn't have them.
Oh, he's given the aura of possessing them - but when one looks closely at that aura, it disappears like smoke before your eyes. For instance, not once has anyone, ever, at any time, produced those grades. In no publication, either Obama's or anyone else's, has any cite been made of that average - was it a 4.0? (Straight A's?) Was it even higher - 4.3? (A+) (And today's high school seniors are graduating with 5.0.) Okay, how about a 3.9 or 3.8?

No. The answer is none. Never. At no time have Obama's grades ever been cited. And that is damning. Because as any person who's ever graduated from elementary, high school or college will tell you, their grade point average is so close to their identity as to be the identity itself. Therefore - for that 'identity' to be invisible as is the case with Obama, is quite revealing. In plain words, if someone doesn't mention a high grade point average, it's for only one reason - there isn't a high grade point average.

Is he really savvy?
Well, with so little experience, I don't see how he could be.
This is what the LA Times said about him this June:
Barack Obama's willingness to meet with the leaders of rogue states such as Iran and North Korea "without preconditions" is a naive and dangerous approach to dealing with the hard men who run pariah states. It will be an important and legitimate issue for policy debate during the remainder of the presidential campaign.

Is he politically connected?
Has anybody heard of this guy before last year?
Was he on anybody's radar at all? No.
He was merely an anti-Clinton pill that the Democrats could swallow.
From The National Review:
The Democrats have gone all the way. They have nominated arguably the most left-wing major party presidential nominee ever, certainly the most left-wing since George McGovern.

Obama’s victory is a repudiation not just of the Clintons personally, but of Clintonism.

Bill Clinton won the presidency based on the Democratic Leadership Council model of a new kind of Democratic politics that pivoted toward the center. Obama not only has had no Sister Souljah moment, he initially embraced his Sister Souljah (in the form of Rev. Jeremiah Wright, introduced to the American public in videotaped rants). He has made no creative policy departure on par with Bill Clinton’s advocacy of welfare reform in 1992 — in fact, has made no creative policy departure at all.

He is the old wine of McGovernite liberalism poured into the alluring wineskin of “hope” and “unity.”

So what gives?
How is this guy even on the ticket in the first place?

Lets look at some of the reasons:
A) Mrs. Bill Clinton suffered from the worst kind of voter angst – Disgust!
They didn’t want 4 more tawdry years of stained dresses and late night pizza deliveries. Obama motored right past her even though he was driving a old junk car with 3 flat tires.

B) Obama's silver tongued double speak is the perfect delivery mechanism for the Marxist message of the Left. And, since the Left has been on a ‘Hate Bush’ kick for the last 7 years, they want nothing more to do with anything related to Mr. Bush or the Republicans. This is the root for the candidate’s reference, that voting for McCain is just asking for a 3rd Bush term. They think he's the right guy at the right time.

C) The media has been desperate for a ‘darling’ they could fawn over. Their efforts became focused when they realized Mrs. Bill Clinton was toast. Obama became their guy - almost overnight! They have covered every speech, every sound bite, every time the candidate kissed a baby. They have been very careful to not discredit him about anything, even though he has given them good reason. Even ‘The Three Stooges’ of network TV tagged along on his trip to Europe and the Middle East!
The MainStream Media LOVES this guy!

D) The Left is showing it’s true motivation - guilt.
Their Great Society has failed.
The Civil Rights movement has failed.
Affirmative Action has failed.
But they continue to spew that tired old line, that they are the ‘party of the people’. Their guilt is mountainous.
They have preached racial equality for so long, hoped for 'the dream' to come true for so long, waited for this moment for so long... and now it is within their grasp.
The first black president!
They will do all they can to elect Obama.
They will stop at nothing to put a black man in the White House.
They desperately need to offer up a 'token dreamer' to validate the effort of all those failed years.

They know this may be their only chance at redemption!
- Their only opportunity to prove at last that 'the dream' can be realized by anyone.
- That equal rights have come to America at last!

Just remember, these equal rights are just for men - black and white.
Everybody else has to have their own redeemer!

The Arrogant One...

This Obama guy sure thinks a lot of himself.
It's been mentioned that he already has a 'transition team' in place for when he takes the White House.
How presumptuous of him!

Just who does this guy think he is???

It's like he expects to be the president so why wouldn't he go ahead and plan for it? Right? Sounds logical. Makes prefect sense.
Except for one thing... He hasn't been elected yet!

His recent trip to Israel makes the point.

Here is a guy running for the President of the United States, on a trip to Europe and the Middle East, under the pretense of a Congressional junket, and making a political stopover in Jerusalem to insert a prayer message in the wailing wall, while his supporters display his campaign banner for all to see!
How rude! How insensitive! How arrogant!

Obama Plasters Political Banner!

We can only hope that the rest of the world will forgive The United States for being so arrogant, so imprudent, so brash.

This man is truly an 'obamination'. He offends me, he offends my friends and he offends everything American.

Obama's Summer Vacation

The Democrat's Presidential candidate has decided to visit several countries this summer in the hope of generating some 'foreign policy' buzz. We all know that he has absolutely NO experience in anything that would make him qualified to be President of the United States, but this trip is his attempt to bolster his puny 'statesmanship' credentials.

He even took the entire entourage of news gathering bafoons including the 3 Stooges of network TV, Gibson, Couric, and Williams. I'm sure we'll get fair and balanced coverage from those clowns... NOT!

As a matter fact, NBC has hailed the junkett as Obama's 'Tour of Duty' as if he were actually serving in our armed forces!

NBC News Refers to Obama's Trip as 'Tour of Duty'
By D. S. Hube...
It's bad enough that Barack Obama's trip to the Middle East is getting an insane amount of MSM coverage (the three big network news anchors? Whoa!); now, NBC News believes it apt to compare Obama's sojourn to ... an actual military tour of duty. Yes indeed. Check out (the link) at right how anchor Lester Holt introduces last evening's Nightly News.

HOLT: "Tour of Duty" as Obama visits the war zone: The fight over where to send combat troops next.

I never served in the military and I find it quite grating that a major news organization would refer to a presidential candidate's foreign trip to a combat zone -- a candidate who never served, incidentally -- as a "tour of duty." Does anyone else recall former President Bill Clinton's claims that he was on 'activfe duty' as Commander-in-Chief, and therefore immune from any prosecution during the Paula Jones matter? After protests by some veterans' groups, Clinton withdrew his claim (although it's unclear if it was due to these protests or because it was a lousy legal argument).

I wonder if NBC will similarly withdraw its specious headline.

When he visited Iraq he met with Gen. Petraeus and Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki. Almost immediately the candidate stated that al-Maliki had agreed with his assessment of the war and his plan for troop withdrawal. Obama wants a definite troop withdrawal by 2010 and al-Maliki is supposed to have agreed with him.
But, it ain't necessarily so...

The Washington Post printed an editorial about the visit to Iraq...
THE INITIAL MEDIA coverage of (Obama's) visit to Iraq suggested that the Democratic candidate found agreement with his plan to withdraw all U.S. combat forces on a 16-month timetable. So it seems worthwhile to point out that, by Mr. Obama's own account, neither U.S. commanders nor Iraq's principal political leaders actually support his strategy.

Gen David H. Petraeus, the architect of the dramatic turnaround in U.S. fortunes, "does not want a timetable," Mr. Obama reported with welcome candor during a news conference yesterday. In an interview with ABC, he explained that "there are deep concerns about . . . a timetable that doesn't take into account what [American commanders] anticipate might be some sort of change in conditions."

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki, who has a history of tailoring his public statements for political purposes, made headlines by saying he would support a withdrawal of American forces by 2010. But an Iraqi government statement made clear that Mr. Maliki's timetable would extend at least seven months beyond Mr. Obama's. More significant, it would be "a timetable which Iraqis set" -- not the Washington-imposed schedule that Mr. Obama has in mind. It would also be conditioned on the readiness of Iraqi forces, the same linkage that Gen. Petraeus seeks. As Mr. Obama put it, Mr. Maliki "wants some flexibility in terms of how that's carried out."

Well there ya go. The candidate will twist the truth to match his position on nearly any issue. This guy is really dangerous!

Then he planned a stopover in Germany and had wanted to give a speach in front of The Bradengurg Gate, but that proposal has angered some German politicians...

Prospect of Obama at Brandenburg Gate Divides German Politicians
BERLIN — With the pillars of the Brandenburg Gate looming in the background, tens of thousands of adoring Berliners turn out to greet Senator (Obama) with wild cheering. It may have seemed like the perfect campaign stop on the candidate’s highly anticipated European tour, an ideal way to burnish his foreign policy credentials.

Instead, the plan — widely dissected in the German news media but never confirmed by the Obama campaign — has exposed fissures in the German government, with the conservative chancellor, Angela Merkel, strongly criticizing the proposal and the Social-Democratic vice chancellor and foreign minister, Frank-Walter Steinmeier, speaking out in favor of it. The ensuing uproar here has underscored the hazards for Mr. Obama in taking his presidential campaign overseas.

Mrs. Merkel has made clear she disapproves of having this potent symbol of German division and reunification pulled into the American election fight. “To use the Brandenburg Gate in some ways as a campaign backdrop, she has a limited sympathy for this and expresses her skepticism over pursuing such plans,” said a spokesman, Thomas Steg, at a news conference Wednesday.

ABC has reported that Obama's stop in Germany...
There may be no greater opportunity for Obama to show (and need to show) he loves his country than when the throngs greet him in Berlin Thursday.
(That's partly because his fellow Americans can watch a million Germans march every night on the History Channel -- and we all know how that film ends.)
And as Obama soaks up the love, he needs his country to love him back.

For as well as it's been going, we don't know how this visit ends -- how an anti-war, anti-administration candidate can deliver a foreign-policy address abroad and not seem anti-American; how hundreds of thousands of Europeans can cheer a presidential candidate and not scare swing-state voters; how the Obama shtick plays with a foreign backdrop; how a candidate who is just plain different fills the JFK-Reagan slot in Berlin.

How is this going to play out?
You can bet your bottom dollar that the Mainstream Media will portray this visit as a great coup for Obama. They'll say he has established himself as a great statesman and that the citizens of the world have embraced him. He is now ready to assume the mantle of President Of The United States!
But most of us know that this guy is an empty suit, a nobody, a con-man, a charlatan.

My Goodness!
Watching this 'Obamamania' fiasco is like watching a mob of lemmings running for the sea.
It's a facinating sight but you know they are all headed for disaster.

In the end, I wonder why the lemmings, and we Americans, continue to gather for this plunge into darkness?

Mainstream Media... Biased or Not?

Several months ago, a friend and I were discussing the frustration we felt about getting decent news coverage of what was going on in Iraq. He remarked that he had seen nothing about 'the surge' or it's effectiveness. I agreed and said I felt the news we did get was so biased toward the left that it was unreliable at best.

We both sort of shrugged and said, "what can we do?" I didn't have an answer then, and I'm not sure I have one now. But that conversation got me thinking more about the news bias we seem to be experiencing. What the heck was going on with the mainstream media?

I had been hearing the conservative radio folks like Rush Limbaugh describe the mainstream media as the 'drive-by media'. The more I heard the phrase, the more the MSM was living up to their billing as 'drive-bys'.

It seamed that nearly every event was covered with a perceived degree of importance relating to your politics.

If you were conservative, your story got honorable mention on page 8.
If you were liberal(or progressive as they like to be called nowadays), your story was front page news and they would even send a stringer to get some video 'B roll' for a lead story on the late news.

Yes, I did see a bias. And so did a lot of other people. But every time I would mention this phenomena I was summarily dismissed as seeing conspiracies where there weren't any.
I was even told that I must be wearing a 'tin hat'.

For those of you in Rio Linda, wearing a tin hat is the preferred method of blocking the governments attempts to read your mind or to influence your thought process with their secret 'mind wave'.

The tin hat theory has been around a long time. If you're accused of wearing one it means you're a little wacky. That you duck for cover when you see the dreaded 'black helicopters'. That you know the car with the blacked out windows parked down the street is full of very secret CIA types.

Well, we suddenly have a concrete reference to this media bias, and it's not a theory any longer. But of course, we knew it was always true from the beginning. The way the press described The President in very unflattering terms... the way the press eagerly began to root for Obama even before he defeated Mrs. Bill Clinton... the way the press simply ignored events that didn't suit their politics! It was fairly obvious.

So now... the New Your Times has refused to print an editorial from the Republican candidate, John McCain.

An editorial written by Republican presidential hopeful McCain has been rejected by the NEW YORK TIMES -- less than a week after the paper published an essay written by Obama, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

The paper's decision to refuse McCain's direct rebuttal to Obama's 'My Plan for Iraq' has ignited explosive charges of media bias in top Republican circles.

'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece,' NYT Op-Ed editor David Shipley explained in an email late Friday to McCain's staff. 'I'm not going to be able to accept this piece as currently written.'

... Shipley continues: 'It would be terrific to have an article from Senator McCain that mirrors Senator Obama's piece. To that end, the article would have to articulate, in concrete terms, how Senator McCain defines victory in Iraq.'

The NYTimes wants McCain to rewrite his editorial to more closely mirror Obama's position???
Is that bias enough for you???

"The question really needs to be posed. Is this type of coverage fair?", said Eric Cantor, a Republican congressman. "This is nothing but a political stunt."

Conservative radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh said: "My prediction is that the coverage of Obama on this trip will be oriented toward countering the notion he has no idea what he is talking about on foreign policy and defence issues and instead will prop him up as a qualified statesman.

"McCain, on the other hand, is a known quantity on these issues and his position does not excite nor fit the mainstream media's narrative on Iraq and Afghanistan, so they simply ignore it and him."

McCain's piece wasn't anything controversial... It simply didn't meet the philosophical and political standards of the NY Times. Well, excuuuuse me! What a bunch of crap! Those idiots deserve all the mean, nasty, vile contempt we can bestow on them!

McCain said... In January 2007, when General David Petraeus took command in Iraq, he called the situation “hard” but not “hopeless.” Today, 18 months later, violence has fallen by up to 80 percent to the lowest levels in four years, and Sunni and Shiite terrorists are reeling from a string of defeats. The situation now is full of hope, but considerable hard work remains to consolidate our fragile gains.

Progress has been due primarily to an increase in the number of troops and a change in their strategy. I was an early advocate of the surge at a time when it had few supporters in Washington. Senator Barack Obama was an equally vocal opponent. “I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there,” he said on January 10, 2007. “In fact, I think it will do the reverse.”

Now Senator Obama has been forced to acknowledge that “our troops have performed brilliantly in lowering the level of violence.” But he still denies that any political progress has resulted.

Oh... the Times didn't like that at all!
McCain was dissing their boy! How dare he!

The Times has come out with some lame-ass excuse for their editorial policy, but it really doesn't matter.
They aren't real journalists any longer... they're just a bunch of liberal hacks jumping on the Hate Bush/Hate Republicans bandwagon.
Fine... so they support Obama. They deserve each other.

McCain campaign Communications Director Jill Hazelbaker said the two candidates “have very different world views” about Iraq and the campaign wanted an opportunity to state its candidate’s view.

“We have elections in this country, not coronations and it’s unfortunate that The New York Times wouldn’t allow their readers to hear from John McCain and make their own judgment,” Hazelbaker told FOX News.

“John McCain believes that victory in Iraq must be based on conditions on the ground, not arbitrary timetables. Unlike Barack Obama, that position will not change based on politics or the demands of the New York Times,” added McCain spokesman Tucker Bounds.

This is going to be a real disaster for conservatives. The 'Drive-Bys' are all behind Obama and McCain doesn't seem to have an answer for combating the bias.

What's next? I wonder if McCain can win against such overwhelming odds? He's going to need something very powerful to convince voters he is the right choice. We all know that Obama has absolutely no experience, is not trustworthy and hates America.

Obama would be a very risky choice.
McCain can be a healthy check on the excesses of a Democratic Congress, but he doesn't seem to really want the office.

Can McCain win the hearts and minds of Americans?
Can McCain defeat both Obama and the bias from the mainstream media? They have already annointed, consecrated, coronated, ordained and beatified their candidate.
How do you defeat the 'chosen one'?

Not Sophistocated Enough?

I surely believed that the magazine cover with the obamination and his wife would cause more of a stir, but it seems to be going away...

When the cover of The New Yorker first appeared it seemed that everyone in the democrat camp felt dissed. They were all calling for the removal of the issue and an apology from the publisher.



Even the candidate himself called the cover a 'scare tactic', since it portrayed him in Muslim attire and his wife totin' a gun.
The Obama campaign is condemning as “tasteless and offensive” a New Yorker magazine cover that depicts (Obama) in a turban, fist-bumping his gun-slinging wife.

But, others, like Andrea Mitchell, said that, "dumb Americans might not get the 'sophisticated' cartoon".

Scott Whitlock reported that... journalist Andrea Mitchell and Washington Post editorial writer Jonathan Capehart discussed whether Americans are not "sophisticated" enough to understand the attempted satire in the cartoon featured on the cover of the current New Yorker magazine. According to Mitchell, "...The only question there is whether [the cover] is too sophisticated to actually be perceived the way it is intended."

You see The New Yorker has long been the bastion of elitist thought and snooty behavior. I once subscribed to the magazine but was constantly appalled at the way the average American was 'talked down to' and regarded as a cretin.

As far as I know the magazine hasn't changed it's editorial style, so I suppose it can be assumed that they still see us regular folks as 'those people'... the servants, the hired help, those low lifes.

Whitlock goes on...
The Post's Capehart suggested that the uneducated voters in Middle America might not comprehend the high minded satire: "...The folks at the New Yorker are very smart, very learned, learned people, but once you get outside of the confines of Manhattan and the Upper West Side, you sort of begin to wonder if anyone-- if there was a conversation around the table about how will this be viewed by people who won't necessarily get the joke."

Mitchell, it needs to be pointed out, has a history with snobbery. This is the same woman who in June was forced to apologize for bashing rural Virginia as "real redneck."

During Monday's "MSNBC News Live," she also asserted that "critics" say the cartoon cover "depicts almost every false stereotype that Republicans have been launching against Barack Obama, plays into all the fears that are being generated on the web."

Of course, one might point out to Capehart and Mitchell that much of Middle America might not read the New Yorker. And that it's the members of the liberal media who seems to be most bothered by the "satire."

So, I guess the cover controversy will surely go away, now that it's common knowledge that neither of the Obamas got the joke.

After all, how could the liberal, elitist magazine continue with their defense of the cover, when it became apparent the candidate and his wife couldn't grasp the intended satire???

And you can bet the liberal mainstream media has recieved their marching orders to 'lay off' the New Yorker story. The candidate shouldn't be made to look stupid!

I guess the candidate is not as sophisticated as he would have us believe?
Maybe he is just a poor black man from the ghetto after all?
Maybe he is black enough? Eh... Jesse? Eh... Rev Al?

I don't think so... He's just as dumb, or dumber than everyone else.
He surely doesn't have the experience nor the 'savvy' to be President!

It's the elitist east coast liberals that believe that they are the enlightened ones. That they alone hold the keys to the vault of knowledge and power in America.

They were hoping for a miracle in Obama, that he was one of them.
That they would have a kindred spirit in the White House.
It's been sooooo long! Not since Jack Kennedy have they enjoyed a rich east coast liberal over their martinis and manhattans!
They were so hopeful!

Instead they're saddled with another 'hick'... and they sure don't like what has happened!
Just another un-sophisticated yokel hoping for a miracle of his own.
Shades of Jimmy Carter!

Scare Tactic???

Heh, heh, heh. The Obama campaign is really pissed!
Aw shucks... ain't that just too darn bad?!?

The New Yorker Magazine has published an article about the Obamas and has a characterization of them on the front cover.


The obamination and his campaign is upset that it portrays he and his wife in an unfavorable light. Poor baby...

"The Obama campaign quickly condemned the rendering. Spokesman Bill Burton said in a statement: “The New Yorker may think, as one of their staff explained to us, that their cover is a satirical lampoon of the caricature Senator Obama's right-wing critics have tried to create. But most readers will see it as tasteless and offensive. And we agree."

What about all the cartoonish, boorish, unflattering images of President Bush? The media has had a field day portraying The President as a childish imp, with big ears, and very unflattering language in the 'bubble'. The President hasn't said a single word in all these years.

But the Obama campaign wants an appology right now! Right NOW!

I think the image is pretty funny.
It has the candidate in Muslim garb, his wife Michelle in camo with a rifle slung over her shoulder and they're giving each other the 'fist'. In the backround is their fireplace with the American flag burning and a picture of OBL above the mantel. Pretty funny stuff if you ask me.

The magazine explains at the start of its news release previewing the issue: “On the cover of the July 21, 2008, issue of The New Yorker, in ‘The Politics of Fear,’ artist Barry Blitt satirizes the use of scare tactics and misinformation in the Presidential election to derail Barack Obama’s campaign.”

Looks like it's done fairly well.
At least it's a cartoon.

But, not this one...


This picture is real!

Clarence Page of the Chicago Tribune defended it as “quite within the normal realms of journalism,” adding that “it's just lampooning all the crazy ignorance out there.”

Im sure Mr. Page is talking about those of us that may think Obama was raised as a Muslim, went to Muslim schools as a child and can offer no documantation that he has converted to Christianity...
- and has a bunch of anti-American buddies.
We're the ones that are the 'crazy' and 'ignorant'. Umm-humm.

Curious to see how the obamination plays this one...

Happy Birthday America!

Ahh yes. The 4th of July!
Fireworks, good food, family fun and racin' at Daytona!

Independance Day.
The day the United States declared itself to be a free nation.

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed.

But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained, and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the meantime exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies, without the consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:
For protecting them by a mock Trial from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:
- For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:
- For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:
- For depriving us in many cases of the benefits of Trial by Jury:
- For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:
- For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:
- For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:
- For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to complete the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms. Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince, whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren.

- We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here.
- We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence.

They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the United States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare.

That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown,

and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain is and ought to be totally dissolved;

and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce,

and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of Divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor.

The signers of the Declaration represented the new states as follows:
New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett, William Whipple, Matthew Thornton
Massachusetts: John Hancock, Samual Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Paine, Elbridge Gerry
Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins, William Ellery Connecticut:Roger Sherman, Samuel Huntington, William Williams, Oliver Wolcott
New York: William Floyd, Philip Livingston, Francis Lewis, Lewis Morris New Jersey:Richard Stockton, John Witherspoon, Francis Hopkinson, John Hart, Abraham Clark
Pennsylvania: Robert Morris, Benjamin Rush, Benjamin Franklin, John Morton, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, James Wilson, George Ross
Delaware: Caesar Rodney, George Read, Thomas McKean
Maryland: Samuel Chase, William Paca, Thomas Stone, Charles Carroll of Carrollton
Virginia: George Wythe, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Nelson, Jr., Francis Lightfoot Lee, Carter Braxton
North Carolina: William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, John Penn
South Carolina: Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Jr., Arthur Middleton
Georgia: Button Gwinnett, Lyman Hall, George Walton

Residents Angered by Group's Distribution of Korans

I found this article today...

Some Houston residents are upset after Korans were left on the doorsteps of hundreds of homes in their neighborhood as part of a campaign to educate people about Islam.

Residents of Braes Timbers in southwest Houston began finding the holy books two weeks ago, MyFOXHouston.com reported. The Korans came with a note saying they had been left by the Book of Signs Foundation, which claims to have distributed 30,000 free copies of the texts to residents throughout the city.

"If we went into a Muslim country and left a Bible, we would be in prison and then decapitated a few years later," Sue Ann Pieri, a resident who chose not to destroy the book, as other neighbors did, told MyFOXHouston.com.

The foundation, which left the books on doormats or hanging from doorknobs, said in a note accompanying the Koran that "rather than judging Islam and Muslims by the actions of a few, we want our fellow citizens to judge us by the book that influences and guides the lives of over 1 billion Muslims."

Tarick Hussein, the president of Houston's Council on American-Islamic Relations, told the station he believes the Book of Signs Foundation wants to educate non-Muslims about the religion.

He told MyFOXHouston.com: "This is a very peaceful way of conveying a message."

Yeah, but we really don't want to learn anymore about the 'religion of peace'. We've already had a belly full!