I'm sure you've been hearing all the hype about Bush's failed policies, and Bush's lack of leadership, and Bush didn't address the current financial problems, and that Bush IS the problem!
Well that's all media hype and pure fiction.
The President has been calling for reforms for Fannie and Freddie for years! 17 times this year alone!
Here is the information provided by The White House.
It's all public record.
For many years the President and his Administration have not only warned of the systemic consequences of financial turmoil at a housing government-sponsored enterprise (GSE) but also put forward thoughtful plans to reduce the risk that either Fannie Mae or Freddie Mac would encounter such difficulties.
President Bush publicly called for GSE reform 17 times in 2008 alone before Congress acted. Unfortunately, these warnings went unheeded, as the President's repeated attempts to reform the supervision of these entities were thwarted by the legislative maneuvering of those who emphatically denied there were problems.
2001
April: The Administration's FY02 budget declares that the size of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac is "a potential problem," because "financial trouble of a large GSE could cause strong repercussions in financial markets, affecting Federally insured entities and economic activity."
2002
May: The President calls for the disclosure and corporate governance principles contained in his 10-point plan for corporate responsibility to apply to Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. (OMB Prompt Letter to OFHEO, 5/29/02)
2003
January: Freddie Mac announces it has to restate financial results for the previous three years.
February: The Office of Federal Housing Enterprise Oversight (OFHEO) releases a report explaining that "although investors perceive an implicit Federal guarantee of [GSE] obligations,"
"the government has provided no explicit legal backing for them."
As a consequence, unexpected problems at a GSE could immediately spread into financial sectors beyond the housing market. ("Systemic Risk: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac and the Role of OFHEO," OFHEO Report, 2/4/03)
September: Fannie Mae discloses SEC investigation and acknowledges OFHEO's review found earnings manipulations.
September: Treasury Secretary John Snow testifies before the House Financial Services Committee to recommend that Congress enact "legislation to create a new Federal agency to regulate and supervise the financial activities of our housing-related government sponsored enterprises" and set prudent and appropriate minimum capital adequacy requirements.
October: Fannie Mae discloses $1.2 billion accounting error.
November: Council of the Economic Advisers (CEA) Chairman Greg Mankiw explains that any "legislation to reform GSE regulation should empower the new regulator with sufficient strength and credibility to reduce systemic risk."
To reduce the potential for systemic instability, the regulator would have "broad authority to set both risk-based and minimum capital standards" and "receivership powers necessary to wind down the affairs of a troubled GSE." (N. Gregory Mankiw, Remarks At The Conference Of State Bank Supervisors State Banking Summit And Leadership, 11/6/03)
2004
February: The President's FY05 Budget again highlights the risk posed by the explosive growth of the GSEs and their low levels of required capital, and called for creation of a new, world-class regulator: "The Administration has determined that the safety and soundness regulators of the housing GSEs lack sufficient power and stature to meet their responsibilities, and therefore…should be replaced with a new strengthened regulator." (2005 Budget Analytic Perspectives, pg. 83)
February: CEA Chairman Mankiw cautions Congress to "not take [the financial market's] strength for granted." Again, the call from the Administration was to reduce this risk by "ensuring that the housing GSEs are overseen by an effective regulator."
(N. Gregory Mankiw, Op-Ed, "Keeping Fannie And Freddie's House In Order," Financial Times, 2/24/04)
June: Deputy Secretary of Treasury Samuel Bodman spotlights the risk posed by the GSEs and called for reform, saying "We do not have a world-class system of supervision of the housing government sponsored enterprises (GSEs), even though the importance of the housing financial system that the GSEs serve demands the best in supervision to ensure the long-term vitality of that system.
Therefore, the Administration has called for a new, first class, regulatory supervisor for the three housing GSEs: Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, and the Federal Home Loan Banking System." (Samuel Bodman, House Financial Services Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations Testimony, 6/16/04)
2005
April: Treasury Secretary John Snow repeats his call for GSE reform, saying "Events that have transpired since I testified before this Committee in 2003 reinforce concerns over the systemic risks posed by the GSEs and further highlight the need for real GSE reform to ensure that our housing finance system remains a strong and vibrant source of funding for expanding homeownership opportunities in America… Half-measures will only exacerbate the risks to our financial system." (Secretary John W. Snow, "Testimony Before The U.S. House Financial Services Committee," 4/13/05)
2007
July: Two Bear Stearns hedge funds invested in mortgage securities collapse.
August: President Bush emphatically calls on Congress to pass a reform package for Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, saying "first things first when it comes to those two institutions. Congress needs to get them reformed, get them streamlined, get them focused, and then I will consider other options." (President George W. Bush, Press Conference, The White House, 8/9/07)
September: RealtyTrac announces foreclosure filings up 243,000 in August – up 115 percent from the year before.
September: Single-family existing home sales decreases 7.5 percent from the previous month – the lowest level in nine years. Median sale price of existing homes fell six percent from the year before.
December: President Bush again warns Congress of the need to pass legislation reforming GSEs, saying "These institutions provide liquidity in the mortgage market that benefits millions of homeowners, and it is vital they operate safely and operate soundly. So I've called on Congress to pass legislation that strengthens independent regulation of the GSEs – and ensures they focus on their important housing mission. The GSE reform bill passed by the House earlier this year is a good start. But the Senate has not acted. And the United States Senate needs to pass this legislation soon." (President George W. Bush, Discusses Housing, The White House, 12/6/07)
2008
January: Bank of America announces it will buy Countrywide.
January: Citigroup announces mortgage portfolio lost $18.1 billion in value.
February: Assistant Secretary David Nason reiterates the urgency of reforms, says "A new regulatory structure for the housing GSEs is essential if these entities are to continue to perform their public mission successfully." (David Nason, Testimony On Reforming GSE Regulation, Senate Committee On Banking, Housing And Urban Affairs, 2/7/08)
March: Bear Stearns announces it will sell itself to JPMorgan Chase.
March: President Bush calls on Congress to take action and "move forward with reforms on Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. They need to continue to modernize the FHA, as well as allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to homeowners to refinance their mortgages." (President George W. Bush, Remarks To The Economic Club Of New York, New York, NY,
3/14/08)
April: President Bush urges Congress to pass the much needed legislation and "modernize Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. [There are] constructive things Congress can do that will encourage the housing market to correct quickly by … helping people stay in their homes." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With Cabinet, the White House, 4/14/08)
May: President Bush issues several pleas to Congress to pass legislation reforming Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac before the situation deteriorates further.
"Americans are concerned about making their mortgage payments and keeping their homes. Yet Congress has failed to pass legislation I have repeatedly requested to modernize the Federal Housing Administration that will help more families stay in their homes, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance sub-prime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/3/08)
"[T]he government ought to be helping creditworthy people stay in their homes. And one way we can do that – and Congress is making progress on this – is the reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. That reform will come with a strong, independent regulator." (President George W. Bush, Meeting With The Secretary Of The Treasury, the White House, 5/19/08)
"Congress needs to pass legislation to modernize the Federal Housing Administration, reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to ensure they focus on their housing mission, and allow State housing agencies to issue tax-free bonds to refinance subprime loans." (President George W. Bush, Radio Address, 5/31/08)
June: As foreclosure rates continued to rise in the first quarter, the President once again asks Congress to take the necessary measures to address this challenge, saying "we need to pass legislation to reform Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac." (President George W. Bush, Remarks At Swearing In Ceremony For Secretary Of Housing And Urban Development, Washington, D.C., 6/6/08)
July: Congress heeds the President's call for action and passes reform of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as it becomes clear that the institutions are failing.
So don't believe what you've been hearing!
The media is lying through it's teeth and want's nothing but to destroy President Bush!
Thursday, September 25, 2008
Wednesday, September 24, 2008
Wall Street Is Gone!
'Wall Street' No Longer Exists! That's right. It's gone!
All those investment banks and mortgage houses are either broke, bankrupt, bought out or going to be bought out!
All those greedy bastards that took out those 'special' mortgages on those overpriced properties with the hopes that their property would continue to increase in value each and every month, have caused all this!
They have killed the "golden goose"!
They went bust and they want the government to bail them out!
That's right... There's gonna be a huge bailout!
To the tune of $700 Billion!
It's mind boggling!
But something must be done, and quickly!
We just can't sit by and watch more and more of our institutions go under.
This is what IBD had to say about the crisis.
How could this have happened?
Well back in 1999, Congress passed something called the Financial Modernization Act of 1999, which passed the House by a vote of 362-57 and the Senate by 90-8, yanking the last brick out of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act's regulatory wall between commercial banks and investment banks.
What does that mean?
It means that was the beginning of the easy money.
It means that was the beginning of the end!
It means that the 'regulatory wall' built in 1933 was demolished, and with recent events, "all the giant financial conglomerates now face oversight and regulation by the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp."
There's even talk of creating an entity like The Resolution Trust Corporation, the oversight vehicle for the Savings and Loan crisis back in the 80s.
So what's next?
Well, for one thing, easy money is a thing of the past!
Everybody will need to tighten their belts and start to watch the bottom line with a magnifying glass!
Last night, The President laid out his plan for our survival.
The government will buy $700 Billion of bad loans at somewhere around 10% of Loan To Value. Then hold on to them for a while- maybe a year or two or three - then after the markets recover, they hope to sell them at 30% or 40% LTV and make a tidy sum. Not a bad idea if you really think about it.
Problem is, the government is in debt up to it's ears too!
But the Democrats want oversight from every corner, and the Republicans think it's socialism! And, they're not far wrong!
But it must be done, and quickly.
But, rest easy. We as taxpayers will not be getting a bill for this.
I know the media has been howling that each taxpayer's share would be something around $5700, but that's nonsense.
The government will just float a loan and make it happen the way they usually do - with smoke and mirrors!
And, after all, things can't bee too bad.
Warren Buffet just invested $5 Billion into Goldman Sachs!
He's a pretty savvy guy.
If he didn't believe that the markets would recover, I don't think he'd be investing in them.
We'll get through this.
It will take a few years, but we'll get through it.
And, if you have any 'mattress money' stashed away, now would be a good time to go shopping for investments.
______________
As an interesting side note to all this...
The 2 Presidential Candidates had a little tete-a-tete on Wednesday.
Obama called McCain to say they should put their heads together and publish a joint statement about the crisis.
I don't think McCain wanted any part of a 'joint' statement!
McCain went on the air and said he was suspending his campaign to go back to Washington to help deal with the crisis, and he hoped Obama would honor his decision and postpone their scheduled Friday debate.
Of course, Obama couldn't resist a quick jab.
He said that a President should be able to 'multi-task', and that he had hoped that both he and McCain could offer their input on the crisis and still prepare for their debate.
(In my opinion, I don't think Obama has a clue about this crisis)
But, it seems that McCain has a little more 'pull' than Obama expected. It was reported that McCain suggested to President Bush that The President call all the necessary members of Congress and invite them to a 'sit down' to discuss his plan.
It was reported that, at McCains request, The President would formally invite both of the candidates, so Obama had to turn tail and fly back to Washington for the meeting.
I guess the 'debate' has been decided?
All those investment banks and mortgage houses are either broke, bankrupt, bought out or going to be bought out!
All those greedy bastards that took out those 'special' mortgages on those overpriced properties with the hopes that their property would continue to increase in value each and every month, have caused all this!
They have killed the "golden goose"!
They went bust and they want the government to bail them out!
That's right... There's gonna be a huge bailout!
To the tune of $700 Billion!
It's mind boggling!
But something must be done, and quickly!
We just can't sit by and watch more and more of our institutions go under.
This is what IBD had to say about the crisis.
How could this have happened?
Well back in 1999, Congress passed something called the Financial Modernization Act of 1999, which passed the House by a vote of 362-57 and the Senate by 90-8, yanking the last brick out of the 1933 Glass-Steagall Act's regulatory wall between commercial banks and investment banks.
What does that mean?
It means that was the beginning of the easy money.
It means that was the beginning of the end!
It means that the 'regulatory wall' built in 1933 was demolished, and with recent events, "all the giant financial conglomerates now face oversight and regulation by the Federal Reserve, the Securities and Exchange Commission, the Comptroller of the Currency and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp."
There's even talk of creating an entity like The Resolution Trust Corporation, the oversight vehicle for the Savings and Loan crisis back in the 80s.
So what's next?
Well, for one thing, easy money is a thing of the past!
Everybody will need to tighten their belts and start to watch the bottom line with a magnifying glass!
Last night, The President laid out his plan for our survival.
The government will buy $700 Billion of bad loans at somewhere around 10% of Loan To Value. Then hold on to them for a while- maybe a year or two or three - then after the markets recover, they hope to sell them at 30% or 40% LTV and make a tidy sum. Not a bad idea if you really think about it.
Problem is, the government is in debt up to it's ears too!
But the Democrats want oversight from every corner, and the Republicans think it's socialism! And, they're not far wrong!
But it must be done, and quickly.
But, rest easy. We as taxpayers will not be getting a bill for this.
I know the media has been howling that each taxpayer's share would be something around $5700, but that's nonsense.
The government will just float a loan and make it happen the way they usually do - with smoke and mirrors!
And, after all, things can't bee too bad.
Warren Buffet just invested $5 Billion into Goldman Sachs!
He's a pretty savvy guy.
If he didn't believe that the markets would recover, I don't think he'd be investing in them.
We'll get through this.
It will take a few years, but we'll get through it.
And, if you have any 'mattress money' stashed away, now would be a good time to go shopping for investments.
______________
As an interesting side note to all this...
The 2 Presidential Candidates had a little tete-a-tete on Wednesday.
Obama called McCain to say they should put their heads together and publish a joint statement about the crisis.
I don't think McCain wanted any part of a 'joint' statement!
McCain went on the air and said he was suspending his campaign to go back to Washington to help deal with the crisis, and he hoped Obama would honor his decision and postpone their scheduled Friday debate.
Of course, Obama couldn't resist a quick jab.
He said that a President should be able to 'multi-task', and that he had hoped that both he and McCain could offer their input on the crisis and still prepare for their debate.
(In my opinion, I don't think Obama has a clue about this crisis)
But, it seems that McCain has a little more 'pull' than Obama expected. It was reported that McCain suggested to President Bush that The President call all the necessary members of Congress and invite them to a 'sit down' to discuss his plan.
It was reported that, at McCains request, The President would formally invite both of the candidates, so Obama had to turn tail and fly back to Washington for the meeting.
I guess the 'debate' has been decided?
The Media Hides Palin Policy News!
Biased Media? Who would-a-thunk it?
The stupid MainStreat Media has done it again.
They are so self absorbed and so invloved with being FOR Obama and AGAINST McCain that they completely missed the point of the meetings that Mrs. Palin had with world leaders... they sure missed the boat this time!
Investor's Business Daily caught it though.
They usually don't miss a trick. Here's the article...
Snarky Media Hide Palin Policy News
Election '08: The press spent so much time sniping at Sarah Palin for her visits with global leaders that in the end it babbled about itself. What it missed was news on John McCain's foreign policy. Who are the real rubes?
Palin's meetings with foreign heads of state in New York this week sent a stark message to the world's tyrants: If she and John McCain are elected to the highest office in the land, America will stand by the embattled nations it calls friends.
Not those nations with the most money, prestige or radical think tanks lobbying Congress on their behalf. Just friends.
What's more, by visiting with leaders of Colombia, Afghanistan, Georgia, Iraq, Pakistan and India, Palin and McCain showed that premium attention will be paid to the friends undergoing the biggest tests and trying hardest to embrace markets.
Dictators and terrorists won't miss that memo. They will adjust their calculations accordingly. But the media are another matter.
Palin met Colombian President Alvaro Uribe and Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Tuesday. Yet not one media outlet caught this undercurrent of McCain's foreign policy to stand by committed allies, derived from President Bush's drive to spread democracy.
Instead, outlets from AP to Newsday to even Fox News busied themselves hollering about access. They made themselves the story. Then they conjectured that these were "tutorials" and "burnishings of resumes" instead of messages to the world.
Obsessed with pink sofas and Alaska-shaped earrings, and on lookout for a mispronounced word, they complained that they got only a briefing, not a seat at the table. In the end, their braying only underlined their lack of interest in foreign affairs.
How do we know this? Because there really was news out there about what was discussed in Palin's meetings, like the one she had with Uribe. Details were reported in Colombian newspapers like El Tiempo, agencies like EFE and other Spanish-language press, where interest in what a President McCain means for a nation like Colombia is very real. Any American who wanted to know that was out of luck unless he could read Spanish.
This emphasis on our strongest allies is a stark contrast with Barack Obama's academic tack on foreign policy, centered on former power centers of Europe and along the beaten track of the Mideast. Those are the places where he chose to visit and meet leaders. And most of the media didn't insist on access to his private sessions.
Palin is denounced as "inexperienced" by these media, but she's no rube in grasping an emerging new world with implications for U.S. policy. In fact, she is looking at the picture with fresh, non-Beltway eyes. Countries like Colombia will grow more relevant as its economy expands, its internal war is won and the threat builds from Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, armed to the teeth with big new weapons.
Obama has never set foot in Latin America. He has yet to sit down with any Latin American leader in person, though he's made the offer to Venezuela's Chavez and Cuba's Castro brothers.
His running mate, Joe Biden, reaps hay for his foreign policy experience but has only managed to set foot in two Latin American countries during his 35 years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Obama has yet to negotiate with a foreign government. Palin did so with Canada, our top energy supplier and largest trading partner, to create a 1,700-mile natural gas pipeline. Obama, in fact, discounted Canada's importance in a campaign vow to break the 1994 trade ties forged in the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Meanwhile, as Palin assured our Colombian and Afghan allies, McCain threw attention to another media-ignored friend, Australia. The Australian on Tuesday published a 1,298-word essay by McCain on what Australia means to him and what his U.S. foreign policy means for them. The newspaper noted that Obama had also been asked to submit a piece but hadn't bothered.
That's the real shame of it all. Palin's visit with Colombia's Uribe, our battered ally surrounded by a hostile Marxist state, sends a major message to the entire region about McCain's commitment to our loyal new friends.
Obama, meantime, imagines that hate-filled, obscenity-spewing Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez will turn docile if he sits down to tea with him without preconditions. Even with that offer on the table to Chavez, he didn't bother meeting with Uribe. Don't think that a tyrant like Chavez didn't notice.
The self-absorbed media missed the real story about McCain and Palin's foreign intentions that the rest of the world is watching and reporting on. Who, again, are the real rubes?
Will this nonsense ever improve? Or go away? Probably not. As long as the media is controlled by liberal, left leaning big money bags like George Soros, Disney, GE and friends, it's likely to be with us for a very long time.
My advice... Never trust them! Do your own research! I know, I know... it's a lot of extra work, and who has time for it?
But if you want to stay informed and get real answers...
YA GOTTA DO IT YOURSELF!
The stupid MainStreat Media has done it again.
They are so self absorbed and so invloved with being FOR Obama and AGAINST McCain that they completely missed the point of the meetings that Mrs. Palin had with world leaders... they sure missed the boat this time!
Investor's Business Daily caught it though.
They usually don't miss a trick. Here's the article...
Snarky Media Hide Palin Policy News
Election '08: The press spent so much time sniping at Sarah Palin for her visits with global leaders that in the end it babbled about itself. What it missed was news on John McCain's foreign policy. Who are the real rubes?
Palin's meetings with foreign heads of state in New York this week sent a stark message to the world's tyrants: If she and John McCain are elected to the highest office in the land, America will stand by the embattled nations it calls friends.
Not those nations with the most money, prestige or radical think tanks lobbying Congress on their behalf. Just friends.
What's more, by visiting with leaders of Colombia, Afghanistan, Georgia, Iraq, Pakistan and India, Palin and McCain showed that premium attention will be paid to the friends undergoing the biggest tests and trying hardest to embrace markets.
Dictators and terrorists won't miss that memo. They will adjust their calculations accordingly. But the media are another matter.
Palin met Colombian President Alvaro Uribe and Afghan President Hamid Karzai on Tuesday. Yet not one media outlet caught this undercurrent of McCain's foreign policy to stand by committed allies, derived from President Bush's drive to spread democracy.
Instead, outlets from AP to Newsday to even Fox News busied themselves hollering about access. They made themselves the story. Then they conjectured that these were "tutorials" and "burnishings of resumes" instead of messages to the world.
Obsessed with pink sofas and Alaska-shaped earrings, and on lookout for a mispronounced word, they complained that they got only a briefing, not a seat at the table. In the end, their braying only underlined their lack of interest in foreign affairs.
How do we know this? Because there really was news out there about what was discussed in Palin's meetings, like the one she had with Uribe. Details were reported in Colombian newspapers like El Tiempo, agencies like EFE and other Spanish-language press, where interest in what a President McCain means for a nation like Colombia is very real. Any American who wanted to know that was out of luck unless he could read Spanish.
This emphasis on our strongest allies is a stark contrast with Barack Obama's academic tack on foreign policy, centered on former power centers of Europe and along the beaten track of the Mideast. Those are the places where he chose to visit and meet leaders. And most of the media didn't insist on access to his private sessions.
Palin is denounced as "inexperienced" by these media, but she's no rube in grasping an emerging new world with implications for U.S. policy. In fact, she is looking at the picture with fresh, non-Beltway eyes. Countries like Colombia will grow more relevant as its economy expands, its internal war is won and the threat builds from Venezuela's Hugo Chavez, armed to the teeth with big new weapons.
Obama has never set foot in Latin America. He has yet to sit down with any Latin American leader in person, though he's made the offer to Venezuela's Chavez and Cuba's Castro brothers.
His running mate, Joe Biden, reaps hay for his foreign policy experience but has only managed to set foot in two Latin American countries during his 35 years on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.
Obama has yet to negotiate with a foreign government. Palin did so with Canada, our top energy supplier and largest trading partner, to create a 1,700-mile natural gas pipeline. Obama, in fact, discounted Canada's importance in a campaign vow to break the 1994 trade ties forged in the North American Free Trade Agreement.
Meanwhile, as Palin assured our Colombian and Afghan allies, McCain threw attention to another media-ignored friend, Australia. The Australian on Tuesday published a 1,298-word essay by McCain on what Australia means to him and what his U.S. foreign policy means for them. The newspaper noted that Obama had also been asked to submit a piece but hadn't bothered.
That's the real shame of it all. Palin's visit with Colombia's Uribe, our battered ally surrounded by a hostile Marxist state, sends a major message to the entire region about McCain's commitment to our loyal new friends.
Obama, meantime, imagines that hate-filled, obscenity-spewing Venezuelan dictator Hugo Chavez will turn docile if he sits down to tea with him without preconditions. Even with that offer on the table to Chavez, he didn't bother meeting with Uribe. Don't think that a tyrant like Chavez didn't notice.
The self-absorbed media missed the real story about McCain and Palin's foreign intentions that the rest of the world is watching and reporting on. Who, again, are the real rubes?
Will this nonsense ever improve? Or go away? Probably not. As long as the media is controlled by liberal, left leaning big money bags like George Soros, Disney, GE and friends, it's likely to be with us for a very long time.
My advice... Never trust them! Do your own research! I know, I know... it's a lot of extra work, and who has time for it?
But if you want to stay informed and get real answers...
YA GOTTA DO IT YOURSELF!
Monday, September 22, 2008
SNL Claims Incest In Palin Family!
Back in the 70s, Saturday Night Live was a very funny TV show. It was irreverent, comical and even silly at times, but it sure was funny.
When the original cast began to break away and newcomers tried their humor it didn't go over so well. Some of the cast were somewhat successful, but by-and-large the show depended on controversy to get ratings.
The show has always been liberal leaning and in the last 10 years or so, the show has been downright disrespectful and mean toward anything conservative. They've had a field day with parodies of George Bush.
As a matter of fact, I personally believe that their characterizations about The President's lack of intelligence and their view of his speech deliverys have done more than any other single thing to turn the country against him.
But, now, they've crossed the line.
SNL has performed a 'skit' lampooning The New York Times, and it it they suggest that there is incest in the Sarah Palin family!
‘SNL’ Palin-Incest Joke Falls Flat In Sketch Lampooning New York Times
In Saturday Night Live’s second attempt to mock this year’s vice presidential race, a sketch lampooning The New York Times as out of touch has instead touched off a firestorm by casually throwing out a much more insidious inference — incest — between Todd Palin and his pregnant, teenage daughter, Bristol.
While SNL fans had widely anticipated the return of Tina Fey in an edgy yet endearing role as Sarah Palin, Saturday’s sketch has managed to reignite the furor sparked by claims early this month that the Republican vice presidential candidate is not the mother of her 5-month-old son, Trig.
The sketch, say supporters, was supposed to accentuate how disconnected The New York Times is from anything west of the Hudson River, particularly Alaska. But critics say that the sketch backfired by suggesting that Todd Palin committed incest.
In the sketch, New York Times reporters are sitting around an assignment meeting discussing what about Palin to investigate next.
One reporter asks: “What about the husband? You know he’s doing those daughters. I mean, come on. It’s Alaska.”
Guest host James Franco, who played the assignment editor, sets up the joke of proving a negative, saying, “He very well could be. Admittedly, there is no evidence of that, but on the other hand, there is no convincing evidence to the contrary. And these are just some of the lingering questions about Governor Palin.”
After three of the reporters agree to go to Alaska, one sues for sexual discrimination after being called “sweetie” by a school board member, one is killed by a polar bear and a final reporter wins a Pulitzer for “unproven, yet un-disproven incest in the Palin family” and then is killed by a polar bear driving a “snow machine.”
The final shot in the rambling joke is an image of a New York Times page, featuring headlines: “While No Direct Evidence of Incest in Palin Family Emerges, Counter Evidence Remains Agonizingly Elusive” and “In a Small Alaska Town, Doubts Still Linger.”
Conservative bloggers are infuriated over the incest joke, most particularly because it plays off claims earlier this month that 17-year-old Bristol Palin is the mother of Trig Palin.
Bristol Palin is five months pregnant and therefore could not be Trig’s mother, John McCain’s campaign noted earlier this month in efforts to diffuse widespread and unfounded gossip that surrounded Trig’s maternity.
Still, left-wing conspirators dissatisfied with that response, have argued that Trig Palin, who was born with Down syndrome, a much more frequent occurrence in women over 40, could have been the outcome of incest, which also increases the odds of the disability.
Now, some bloggers are urging protests of the show be sent to producer Lorne Michaels. The video was not posted on the SNL Web site.
Editor’s Note: When this story was originally published at 12:07 pm ET, the video was available on YouTube. It has since been removed and a notice posted that NBC Universal has issued a copyright claim. Many other SNL videos remain on YouTube.
If there was ever a TV show that has been long overdue to be cancelled, it's this one!
Somebody get the hook!
When the original cast began to break away and newcomers tried their humor it didn't go over so well. Some of the cast were somewhat successful, but by-and-large the show depended on controversy to get ratings.
The show has always been liberal leaning and in the last 10 years or so, the show has been downright disrespectful and mean toward anything conservative. They've had a field day with parodies of George Bush.
As a matter of fact, I personally believe that their characterizations about The President's lack of intelligence and their view of his speech deliverys have done more than any other single thing to turn the country against him.
But, now, they've crossed the line.
SNL has performed a 'skit' lampooning The New York Times, and it it they suggest that there is incest in the Sarah Palin family!
‘SNL’ Palin-Incest Joke Falls Flat In Sketch Lampooning New York Times
In Saturday Night Live’s second attempt to mock this year’s vice presidential race, a sketch lampooning The New York Times as out of touch has instead touched off a firestorm by casually throwing out a much more insidious inference — incest — between Todd Palin and his pregnant, teenage daughter, Bristol.
While SNL fans had widely anticipated the return of Tina Fey in an edgy yet endearing role as Sarah Palin, Saturday’s sketch has managed to reignite the furor sparked by claims early this month that the Republican vice presidential candidate is not the mother of her 5-month-old son, Trig.
The sketch, say supporters, was supposed to accentuate how disconnected The New York Times is from anything west of the Hudson River, particularly Alaska. But critics say that the sketch backfired by suggesting that Todd Palin committed incest.
In the sketch, New York Times reporters are sitting around an assignment meeting discussing what about Palin to investigate next.
One reporter asks: “What about the husband? You know he’s doing those daughters. I mean, come on. It’s Alaska.”
Guest host James Franco, who played the assignment editor, sets up the joke of proving a negative, saying, “He very well could be. Admittedly, there is no evidence of that, but on the other hand, there is no convincing evidence to the contrary. And these are just some of the lingering questions about Governor Palin.”
After three of the reporters agree to go to Alaska, one sues for sexual discrimination after being called “sweetie” by a school board member, one is killed by a polar bear and a final reporter wins a Pulitzer for “unproven, yet un-disproven incest in the Palin family” and then is killed by a polar bear driving a “snow machine.”
The final shot in the rambling joke is an image of a New York Times page, featuring headlines: “While No Direct Evidence of Incest in Palin Family Emerges, Counter Evidence Remains Agonizingly Elusive” and “In a Small Alaska Town, Doubts Still Linger.”
Conservative bloggers are infuriated over the incest joke, most particularly because it plays off claims earlier this month that 17-year-old Bristol Palin is the mother of Trig Palin.
Bristol Palin is five months pregnant and therefore could not be Trig’s mother, John McCain’s campaign noted earlier this month in efforts to diffuse widespread and unfounded gossip that surrounded Trig’s maternity.
Still, left-wing conspirators dissatisfied with that response, have argued that Trig Palin, who was born with Down syndrome, a much more frequent occurrence in women over 40, could have been the outcome of incest, which also increases the odds of the disability.
Now, some bloggers are urging protests of the show be sent to producer Lorne Michaels. The video was not posted on the SNL Web site.
Editor’s Note: When this story was originally published at 12:07 pm ET, the video was available on YouTube. It has since been removed and a notice posted that NBC Universal has issued a copyright claim. Many other SNL videos remain on YouTube.
If there was ever a TV show that has been long overdue to be cancelled, it's this one!
Somebody get the hook!
Wednesday, September 17, 2008
Palin Power
When I read this piece by Myrna Blyth, I found myself smiling right away.
It's refreshing to hear women talk about Mrs. Palin in terms of 'validation', 'inspiration', and 'walking the walk.
So if you're interested in a woman's perspective of the VP Candidate, it's a pretty good read.
Here's her article in full.
Palin Power
‘What do you think of Sarah Palin?” That is what women have been asking each other for the past two weeks. Candace Buehner of Royal Oak, Mich., e-mailed to tell me about her enthusiasm for Palin’s candidacy. Beuhner describes herself as a “a 38-year-old working mom who already leaned right. But I have to say that the choice of Sarah Palin has been validating on so many levels. . . . Here, truly, is a woman who is walking the walk.”
Conservative and even moderate Republican women are, in general, wildly enthusiastic and now determined to see the McCain-Palin ticket succeed. But Palin has also touched an important chord that has very little to do with politics or policies.
Buehner writes, “When I struggle, and Lord knows I do, with two young sons and work and a really messy house (did I mention that I just came home from a day-trip to Iowa and found two feet of children’s books and a sinkful of dishes?), when it comes to Sarah Palin, I have nothing on this chick. [She] definitely has inspired me to believe that anything is possible.”
That was very much the same sentiment expressed to me by a 50ish divorcee at the small-town Connecticut café where I get my weekend papers. Over coffee she told me, “I am not sure I always agree with her, and I wish she had more experience. But she inspires me. She makes me feel I can still do anything.” Another friend, a loyal Republican, told me that instead of going to the rally in Fairfax last week, she went to the gym for the first time in years: “Palin has five kids and she looks so good and strong. I bet she wouldn’t mind my missing her appearance if I really try to shape up. I know she’d understand.”
In describing that Fairfax rally, filled with enthusiastic moms, New York Times blogger Judith Warner started out with her usual smarmy sneering. She writes, “[A supporter] handed me back my reporter’s notebook when one of her almost-two-year-old twins, fixing me with a dark look of mistrust, took it away. ‘Liberal media, eh?’ her solemn eyes glared. “Well, watch what you say about my mommy and Our Sarah.” Oh, please.
But even Warner could not totally put down the Power of Palin, what she represents and how she inspires. She writes, “My morning with the hockey and the soccer moms, the home schooling moms and the book club moms, the joyful moms who brought their children to see history in the making was . . . sobering. ‘Palin Power’ . . . is about making yearnings come true, about deep, inchoate desires about service and respect, hierarchy and family.” Warner got that, but just couldn’t accept that such yearnings are focused on “this unlikely woman.”
Fortunately, many other women, those who don’t write blogs for the Times (or books about how much better it is to be a mother in France than in America, as Warner has), have no trouble understanding Palin’s enormous appeal. Palin inspires primarily because she lives her beliefs with strength, with enthusiasm, and with unswerving commitment to her values — the values her supporters share.
We all know it’s not Palin’s take on the issues, or even her lack of experience, that is driving many women in the media crazy (especially those speechwriter Chriss Winston calls “The Sisterhood of the Traveling Rants”). What is really frightening them is that the woman who finally might do it, break through that glass ceiling, might not have “Democrat” stamped on her uterus. She might not feel that American women, just because they are women and no matter what life hands them, are victims.
And as for how Sarah should handle the out-to-get-her media, Candace Beuhner has some good advice: “Can you believe Charlie Gibson?” she writes. “He reminded me of my four-and-a-half-year-old reprimanding my three-year-old. The whole superior air, followed by an elaborate instruction on the ‘right’ way of doing something, with the grand finale of, ‘Yes, well, that’s because I’m smarter than you.’ In our house, that whole tableau is usually followed by my three-year-old giving his big brother a big whomp on the head. I kept wanting her to say, ‘Come off it, Charlie. We all know who you’re voting for.’ I just wish she could have taken him caribou hunting.”
— Myrna Blyth, long-time editor of Ladies Home Journal and founding editor of More, is author of Spin Sisters: How the Women of the Media Sell Unhappiness — and Liberalism — to the Women of America. Blyth is also an NRO contributor.
Bravo Myrna! At least some of the ladies 'get it'!
It's refreshing to hear women talk about Mrs. Palin in terms of 'validation', 'inspiration', and 'walking the walk.
So if you're interested in a woman's perspective of the VP Candidate, it's a pretty good read.
Here's her article in full.
Palin Power
‘What do you think of Sarah Palin?” That is what women have been asking each other for the past two weeks. Candace Buehner of Royal Oak, Mich., e-mailed to tell me about her enthusiasm for Palin’s candidacy. Beuhner describes herself as a “a 38-year-old working mom who already leaned right. But I have to say that the choice of Sarah Palin has been validating on so many levels. . . . Here, truly, is a woman who is walking the walk.”
Conservative and even moderate Republican women are, in general, wildly enthusiastic and now determined to see the McCain-Palin ticket succeed. But Palin has also touched an important chord that has very little to do with politics or policies.
Buehner writes, “When I struggle, and Lord knows I do, with two young sons and work and a really messy house (did I mention that I just came home from a day-trip to Iowa and found two feet of children’s books and a sinkful of dishes?), when it comes to Sarah Palin, I have nothing on this chick. [She] definitely has inspired me to believe that anything is possible.”
That was very much the same sentiment expressed to me by a 50ish divorcee at the small-town Connecticut café where I get my weekend papers. Over coffee she told me, “I am not sure I always agree with her, and I wish she had more experience. But she inspires me. She makes me feel I can still do anything.” Another friend, a loyal Republican, told me that instead of going to the rally in Fairfax last week, she went to the gym for the first time in years: “Palin has five kids and she looks so good and strong. I bet she wouldn’t mind my missing her appearance if I really try to shape up. I know she’d understand.”
In describing that Fairfax rally, filled with enthusiastic moms, New York Times blogger Judith Warner started out with her usual smarmy sneering. She writes, “[A supporter] handed me back my reporter’s notebook when one of her almost-two-year-old twins, fixing me with a dark look of mistrust, took it away. ‘Liberal media, eh?’ her solemn eyes glared. “Well, watch what you say about my mommy and Our Sarah.” Oh, please.
But even Warner could not totally put down the Power of Palin, what she represents and how she inspires. She writes, “My morning with the hockey and the soccer moms, the home schooling moms and the book club moms, the joyful moms who brought their children to see history in the making was . . . sobering. ‘Palin Power’ . . . is about making yearnings come true, about deep, inchoate desires about service and respect, hierarchy and family.” Warner got that, but just couldn’t accept that such yearnings are focused on “this unlikely woman.”
Fortunately, many other women, those who don’t write blogs for the Times (or books about how much better it is to be a mother in France than in America, as Warner has), have no trouble understanding Palin’s enormous appeal. Palin inspires primarily because she lives her beliefs with strength, with enthusiasm, and with unswerving commitment to her values — the values her supporters share.
We all know it’s not Palin’s take on the issues, or even her lack of experience, that is driving many women in the media crazy (especially those speechwriter Chriss Winston calls “The Sisterhood of the Traveling Rants”). What is really frightening them is that the woman who finally might do it, break through that glass ceiling, might not have “Democrat” stamped on her uterus. She might not feel that American women, just because they are women and no matter what life hands them, are victims.
And as for how Sarah should handle the out-to-get-her media, Candace Beuhner has some good advice: “Can you believe Charlie Gibson?” she writes. “He reminded me of my four-and-a-half-year-old reprimanding my three-year-old. The whole superior air, followed by an elaborate instruction on the ‘right’ way of doing something, with the grand finale of, ‘Yes, well, that’s because I’m smarter than you.’ In our house, that whole tableau is usually followed by my three-year-old giving his big brother a big whomp on the head. I kept wanting her to say, ‘Come off it, Charlie. We all know who you’re voting for.’ I just wish she could have taken him caribou hunting.”
— Myrna Blyth, long-time editor of Ladies Home Journal and founding editor of More, is author of Spin Sisters: How the Women of the Media Sell Unhappiness — and Liberalism — to the Women of America. Blyth is also an NRO contributor.
Bravo Myrna! At least some of the ladies 'get it'!
Monday, September 15, 2008
Wall Street Nightmare!
WOW!
Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch are gone!
What the hell happened?
The Dow suffered its worst percentage loss in more than six years Monday as the markets were slammed by an historic weekend that left Wall Street without financial giants Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch.
The momentous selloff came as insurance giant AIG lost more than half its value and crude oil futures plunged more than $5, closing below $100 a barrel for the first time since March.
Today's Market
The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 504.48 points, or 4.42% to 10917.51, the Standard & Poor’s 500 lost 58.17 points, or 4.65%, to 1193.53 and the Nasdaq Composite slid 81.36 points, or 3.60%, to 2179.91. The FOX 50 dropped 39.47 points, or 4.37%, to 863.37.
Did anybody see this coming?
Sure we did. We just didn't think people would overreact like this and we sure didn't think that all those bad loans would go to forclosure like carribou crossing the tundra during the migration!
The markets went into a tailspin in the final minutes of the day, reflecting anxiety over AIG (AIG: 4.76, -7.38, -60.79%), Tuesday's Federal Reserve policy meeting and an upcoming earnings statement from Goldman Sachs (GS: 135.50, -18.71, -12.13%). The VIX, a measure of market volatility, jumped 23.5% to 31.7 on Monday.
“This is a very bad situation and people are justifiably concerned," said Michael James, senior equity trader at Wedbush Morgan Securities in Los Angeles. “Right now it's sell first and ask question later.”
So, How did this happen?
Investor's Business Daily has a pretty good handle on the mess...
The Real Culprits In This Meltdown
Big Government: Barack Obama and Democrats blame the historic financial turmoil on the market. But if it's dysfunctional, Democrats during the Clinton years are a prime reason for it.
Obama in a statement yesterday blamed the shocking new round of subprime-related bankruptcies on the free-market system, and specifically the "trickle-down" economics of the Bush administration, which he tried to gig opponent John McCain for wanting to extend.
But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street's most revered institutions.
Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.
The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but "predatory."
Yes, the market was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary market for subprimes, vis-a-vis mortgaged-backed securities traded on Wall Street. But the seed was planted in the '90s by Clinton and his social engineers. They were the political catalyst behind this slow-motion financial train wreck.
And it was the Clinton administration that mismanaged the quasi-governmental agencies that over the decades have come to manage the real estate market in America.
As soon as Clinton crony Franklin Delano Raines took the helm in 1999 at Fannie Mae, for example, he used it as his personal piggy bank, looting it for a total of almost $100 million in compensation by the time he left in early 2005 under an ethical cloud.
Other Clinton cronies, including Janet Reno aide Jamie Gorelick, padded their pockets to the tune of another $75 million.
Raines was accused of overstating earnings and shifting losses so he and other senior executives could earn big bonuses.
In the end, Fannie had to pay a record $400 million civil fine for SEC and other violations, while also agreeing as part of a settlement to make changes in its accounting procedures and ways of managing risk.
But it was too little, too late. Raines had reportedly steered Fannie Mae business to subprime giant Countrywide Financial, which was saved from bankruptcy by Bank of America.
At the same time, the Clinton administration was pushing Fannie and her brother Freddie Mac to buy more mortgages from low-income households.
The Clinton-era corruption, combined with unprecedented catering to affordable-housing lobbyists, resulted in today's nationalization of both Fannie and Freddie, a move that is expected to cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.
And the worst is far from over. By the time it is, we'll all be paying for Clinton's social experiment, one that Obama hopes to trump with a whole new round of meddling in the housing and jobs markets. In fact, the social experiment Obama has planned could dwarf both the Great Society and New Deal in size and scope.
There's a political root cause to this mess that we ignore at our peril. If we blame the wrong culprits, we'll learn the wrong lessons. And taxpayers will be on the hook for even larger bailouts down the road.
But the government-can-do-no-wrong crowd just doesn't get it. They won't acknowledge the law of unintended consequences from well-meaning, if misguided, acts.
Obama and Democrats on the Hill think even more regulation and more interference in the market will solve the problem their policies helped cause. For now, unarmed by the historic record, conventional wisdom is buying into their blame-business-first rhetoric and bigger-government solutions.
While government arguably has a role in helping low-income folks buy a home, Clinton went overboard by strong-arming lenders with tougher and tougher regulations, which only led to lenders taking on hundreds of billions in subprime bilge.
Market failure? Hardly. Once again, this crisis has government's fingerprints all over it.
So, there it is folks. Big goverenment at it's best.
The bail out king at work. Make all these marginal loans available to the least of us and when they go bad, just bail them out. The taxpayers won't mind...
Oh, and don't forget to blame George... Everybody else is!
Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch are gone!
What the hell happened?
The Dow suffered its worst percentage loss in more than six years Monday as the markets were slammed by an historic weekend that left Wall Street without financial giants Lehman Brothers and Merrill Lynch.
The momentous selloff came as insurance giant AIG lost more than half its value and crude oil futures plunged more than $5, closing below $100 a barrel for the first time since March.
Today's Market
The Dow Jones Industrial Average fell 504.48 points, or 4.42% to 10917.51, the Standard & Poor’s 500 lost 58.17 points, or 4.65%, to 1193.53 and the Nasdaq Composite slid 81.36 points, or 3.60%, to 2179.91. The FOX 50 dropped 39.47 points, or 4.37%, to 863.37.
Did anybody see this coming?
Sure we did. We just didn't think people would overreact like this and we sure didn't think that all those bad loans would go to forclosure like carribou crossing the tundra during the migration!
The markets went into a tailspin in the final minutes of the day, reflecting anxiety over AIG (AIG: 4.76, -7.38, -60.79%), Tuesday's Federal Reserve policy meeting and an upcoming earnings statement from Goldman Sachs (GS: 135.50, -18.71, -12.13%). The VIX, a measure of market volatility, jumped 23.5% to 31.7 on Monday.
“This is a very bad situation and people are justifiably concerned," said Michael James, senior equity trader at Wedbush Morgan Securities in Los Angeles. “Right now it's sell first and ask question later.”
So, How did this happen?
Investor's Business Daily has a pretty good handle on the mess...
The Real Culprits In This Meltdown
Big Government: Barack Obama and Democrats blame the historic financial turmoil on the market. But if it's dysfunctional, Democrats during the Clinton years are a prime reason for it.
Obama in a statement yesterday blamed the shocking new round of subprime-related bankruptcies on the free-market system, and specifically the "trickle-down" economics of the Bush administration, which he tried to gig opponent John McCain for wanting to extend.
But it was the Clinton administration, obsessed with multiculturalism, that dictated where mortgage lenders could lend, and originally helped create the market for the high-risk subprime loans now infecting like a retrovirus the balance sheets of many of Wall Street's most revered institutions.
Tough new regulations forced lenders into high-risk areas where they had no choice but to lower lending standards to make the loans that sound business practices had previously guarded against making. It was either that or face stiff government penalties.
The untold story in this whole national crisis is that President Clinton put on steroids the Community Redevelopment Act, a well-intended Carter-era law designed to encourage minority homeownership. And in so doing, he helped create the market for the risky subprime loans that he and Democrats now decry as not only greedy but "predatory."
Yes, the market was fueled by greed and overleveraging in the secondary market for subprimes, vis-a-vis mortgaged-backed securities traded on Wall Street. But the seed was planted in the '90s by Clinton and his social engineers. They were the political catalyst behind this slow-motion financial train wreck.
And it was the Clinton administration that mismanaged the quasi-governmental agencies that over the decades have come to manage the real estate market in America.
As soon as Clinton crony Franklin Delano Raines took the helm in 1999 at Fannie Mae, for example, he used it as his personal piggy bank, looting it for a total of almost $100 million in compensation by the time he left in early 2005 under an ethical cloud.
Other Clinton cronies, including Janet Reno aide Jamie Gorelick, padded their pockets to the tune of another $75 million.
Raines was accused of overstating earnings and shifting losses so he and other senior executives could earn big bonuses.
In the end, Fannie had to pay a record $400 million civil fine for SEC and other violations, while also agreeing as part of a settlement to make changes in its accounting procedures and ways of managing risk.
But it was too little, too late. Raines had reportedly steered Fannie Mae business to subprime giant Countrywide Financial, which was saved from bankruptcy by Bank of America.
At the same time, the Clinton administration was pushing Fannie and her brother Freddie Mac to buy more mortgages from low-income households.
The Clinton-era corruption, combined with unprecedented catering to affordable-housing lobbyists, resulted in today's nationalization of both Fannie and Freddie, a move that is expected to cost taxpayers tens of billions of dollars.
And the worst is far from over. By the time it is, we'll all be paying for Clinton's social experiment, one that Obama hopes to trump with a whole new round of meddling in the housing and jobs markets. In fact, the social experiment Obama has planned could dwarf both the Great Society and New Deal in size and scope.
There's a political root cause to this mess that we ignore at our peril. If we blame the wrong culprits, we'll learn the wrong lessons. And taxpayers will be on the hook for even larger bailouts down the road.
But the government-can-do-no-wrong crowd just doesn't get it. They won't acknowledge the law of unintended consequences from well-meaning, if misguided, acts.
Obama and Democrats on the Hill think even more regulation and more interference in the market will solve the problem their policies helped cause. For now, unarmed by the historic record, conventional wisdom is buying into their blame-business-first rhetoric and bigger-government solutions.
While government arguably has a role in helping low-income folks buy a home, Clinton went overboard by strong-arming lenders with tougher and tougher regulations, which only led to lenders taking on hundreds of billions in subprime bilge.
Market failure? Hardly. Once again, this crisis has government's fingerprints all over it.
So, there it is folks. Big goverenment at it's best.
The bail out king at work. Make all these marginal loans available to the least of us and when they go bad, just bail them out. The taxpayers won't mind...
Oh, and don't forget to blame George... Everybody else is!
Sunday, September 14, 2008
These past days have been filled with some crazy events.
Two hurricanes but only one was bad - IKE, two unusual VP picks for both parties and a remembrance of 9/11...
Never Forget...
A lot of stuff to talk about, but I've been very busy and I'm just tired right now.
I guess the one thing that stands out is the choice of Sarah Palin for McCain's VP. Not only has the choice seemed to energize the conservative base of the party, but it has knocked Obama back on his heels a bit!
His VP, Joe Biden has admitted that maybe he wasn't the best choice after all? That maybe Obama should have chosen Hillary instead?
What a bunch of whiners!
The Dems have even sent an army of investigators to Alaska to try and uncover any dirt they can on Mrs. Palin. I'm sure they'll come away with something, whether it's true or not is anyone's guess. They seem desparate.
But, mark my words, they will soon get very nasty.
It's been reported that Obama has formed a Plumbers Unit, much like the unit Nixon had in the 70s to stop any leaks and perform dirty tricks against his opponents. I thought The Messiah said he was a different kind of politician?
Yeah, sure... Change We Can Believe In!
Pure smoke and mirrors. I really have a hard time understanding how people can fall for this guy? Can't they see thru his BS? Or are they just stupid?
But things are strangely quiet. I'm wondering if Obama is planning some master stroke to take down McCain and Palin at the same time? Maybe he has some devious evil thoughts working to destroy his opposition. That's his MO. Why should we expect him to change?
College football is on the move. Looks like Florida, Oklahoma, USC, and Mizzou witll duke it out for a few weeks. I still like Tebow and Florida, but we'll see.
Don't forget to write!
Best regards...
Two hurricanes but only one was bad - IKE, two unusual VP picks for both parties and a remembrance of 9/11...
Never Forget...
A lot of stuff to talk about, but I've been very busy and I'm just tired right now.
I guess the one thing that stands out is the choice of Sarah Palin for McCain's VP. Not only has the choice seemed to energize the conservative base of the party, but it has knocked Obama back on his heels a bit!
His VP, Joe Biden has admitted that maybe he wasn't the best choice after all? That maybe Obama should have chosen Hillary instead?
What a bunch of whiners!
The Dems have even sent an army of investigators to Alaska to try and uncover any dirt they can on Mrs. Palin. I'm sure they'll come away with something, whether it's true or not is anyone's guess. They seem desparate.
But, mark my words, they will soon get very nasty.
It's been reported that Obama has formed a Plumbers Unit, much like the unit Nixon had in the 70s to stop any leaks and perform dirty tricks against his opponents. I thought The Messiah said he was a different kind of politician?
Yeah, sure... Change We Can Believe In!
Pure smoke and mirrors. I really have a hard time understanding how people can fall for this guy? Can't they see thru his BS? Or are they just stupid?
But things are strangely quiet. I'm wondering if Obama is planning some master stroke to take down McCain and Palin at the same time? Maybe he has some devious evil thoughts working to destroy his opposition. That's his MO. Why should we expect him to change?
College football is on the move. Looks like Florida, Oklahoma, USC, and Mizzou witll duke it out for a few weeks. I still like Tebow and Florida, but we'll see.
Don't forget to write!
Best regards...
Friday, August 29, 2008
What a Week!
Wow! Could we have asked for a week filled with more excitement?
I couldn't decide which TV channel to turn to... What should I watch?
The Olympics?
The news about the Democrat candidate choosing a VP?
The news about the DNC Convention?
The rumblings about the Clinton - Obama feud?
The Military Channel and the rerun of 'Battlefields'?
FSC and Man U?
For me the best news, the most rewarding news, was the news about the Republican candidate choosing a VP...
I think Sarah Palin is an excellent choice!
John McCain could not have done America any prouder than to pick the Governor from Alaska. This gal is all woman. Everybit of her. From her mittens with the trigger finger exposed right down to her Goretex snow boots. And, she's easy on the eyes too!
My kind of woman!
I don't know if Palin will provide enough enthusiasm for the Republican base to get up off their dead asses and vote for McCain this fall, but if she can't, well, nobody could have saved us!
I think she is a very good foil to that idiot Biden. I don't think she'll have any trouble leaving him twisting in the wind. And I think she may very well energize the Hillary Women that still feel slighted. Even some of the women that were planning on staying home may be encouraged to the ticket with Palin on board.
Change We Can Believe In... Yeah, that's right bub. Change!
I couldn't decide which TV channel to turn to... What should I watch?
The Olympics?
The news about the Democrat candidate choosing a VP?
The news about the DNC Convention?
The rumblings about the Clinton - Obama feud?
The Military Channel and the rerun of 'Battlefields'?
FSC and Man U?
For me the best news, the most rewarding news, was the news about the Republican candidate choosing a VP...
I think Sarah Palin is an excellent choice!
John McCain could not have done America any prouder than to pick the Governor from Alaska. This gal is all woman. Everybit of her. From her mittens with the trigger finger exposed right down to her Goretex snow boots. And, she's easy on the eyes too!
My kind of woman!
I don't know if Palin will provide enough enthusiasm for the Republican base to get up off their dead asses and vote for McCain this fall, but if she can't, well, nobody could have saved us!
I think she is a very good foil to that idiot Biden. I don't think she'll have any trouble leaving him twisting in the wind. And I think she may very well energize the Hillary Women that still feel slighted. Even some of the women that were planning on staying home may be encouraged to the ticket with Palin on board.
Change We Can Believe In... Yeah, that's right bub. Change!
Thursday, August 21, 2008
George W. Bush - My President
On one of the Internet message boards I visit, I was asked what I thought about President Bush.
Then on another board, there was a thread going titled, 'The George Bush Fan Club Thread', so I decided I would respond on both boards...
Here's the content of what I posted:
In the late 90s I was up to here with the Clintons.
I was looking for an alternative to the stained dresses and the liar mentality that lived in the White House, but who?
Republicans didn’t have much going for them back then.
Newt Gingrich was the obvious choice, but he didn’t seem to want the job. He left politics before the 2000 election.
So who was the guy to take on the presumptive nominee from the left, Algore?
When George Bush’s name began to surface I was more than a little surprised.
He was the Governor of Texas and had been an owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team so he knew his way around the boardroom and big time politics.
But what was this ‘compassionate conservatism’ he was talking about?
I sure didn’t know very much about him but I was for anybody that could disassemble the Clinton Machine and defeat their boy Algore. We didn’t need any more of the Clinton cronyism!
I jumped on the Bush bandwagon early!
Conservative or not!
Then came the September Attacks. America was devastated.
Everyone I talked with had the same question on their lips.
“What’s The President going to do?”
It didn’t take long to realize what the answer was.
He invaded Afghanistan and went on a massive terrorist hunt.
It surprised me that he reached out to Kennedy for joint ownership of the education bill. I was very skeptical of any relationship with Kennedy.
He has a history of putting himself first.
Later, that relationship came back to bite Mr. Bush in the Butt!
Then we began hearing strange comments about the President.
Things like he was dense, and that he didn’t know how to speak in public.
He began to take more and more personal criticism from the late night talk shows and the Saturday Night Live crew.
It was getting pretty ugly and I wondered why The President didn’t’ defend himself? Didn’t strike back? Or at least publicly laugh at the criticism and sluff it off?
But he never did defend himself.
He said that those kinds of criticisms were beneath the office and didn’t deserve any comment. I tend to agree with him, but the comments were getting out of hand.
The left and the Democrats have hurled every insult, every derogatory remark, every rotten tomato they had in their bag of dirty tricks at Mr. Bush.
They have tried to turn the country against him… all because they still believe he stole the 2000 election and lied about WMDs.
But, through all this...
President Bush has been a ROCK!
He has let none of this nonsense affect his performance...
but I’m sure it’s taken it’s toll on his self esteem.
But he’s a fighter. He’s a strong soul.
He has kept the country together even as the left has tried to tear it apart.
His values have kept him strong.
His faith has kept him strong.
His wife has kept him strong.
His commitment to America has kept him strong.
Sure, I might have done things a little differently, but, after all, I wasn’t dodging rotten tomatoes.
Thank you for your service, Mr. President!
Thank you very, very, much.
Oh... And one more thing.
For all you liberal Democrats out there that have been whining and crying for seven years about having 'your' election stolen...
and all of you misguided leftys that have been saying President Bush should be impeached and is the worst President ever...
and those of you mindless idiots that believe all those terrible nasty things said by the lefty Nancy Pelosi, Dingy Harry Reid, and the MainStream Media...
This is for you!
Then on another board, there was a thread going titled, 'The George Bush Fan Club Thread', so I decided I would respond on both boards...
Here's the content of what I posted:
In the late 90s I was up to here with the Clintons.
I was looking for an alternative to the stained dresses and the liar mentality that lived in the White House, but who?
Republicans didn’t have much going for them back then.
Newt Gingrich was the obvious choice, but he didn’t seem to want the job. He left politics before the 2000 election.
So who was the guy to take on the presumptive nominee from the left, Algore?
When George Bush’s name began to surface I was more than a little surprised.
He was the Governor of Texas and had been an owner of the Texas Rangers baseball team so he knew his way around the boardroom and big time politics.
But what was this ‘compassionate conservatism’ he was talking about?
I sure didn’t know very much about him but I was for anybody that could disassemble the Clinton Machine and defeat their boy Algore. We didn’t need any more of the Clinton cronyism!
I jumped on the Bush bandwagon early!
Conservative or not!
Then came the September Attacks. America was devastated.
Everyone I talked with had the same question on their lips.
“What’s The President going to do?”
It didn’t take long to realize what the answer was.
He invaded Afghanistan and went on a massive terrorist hunt.
It surprised me that he reached out to Kennedy for joint ownership of the education bill. I was very skeptical of any relationship with Kennedy.
He has a history of putting himself first.
Later, that relationship came back to bite Mr. Bush in the Butt!
Then we began hearing strange comments about the President.
Things like he was dense, and that he didn’t know how to speak in public.
He began to take more and more personal criticism from the late night talk shows and the Saturday Night Live crew.
It was getting pretty ugly and I wondered why The President didn’t’ defend himself? Didn’t strike back? Or at least publicly laugh at the criticism and sluff it off?
But he never did defend himself.
He said that those kinds of criticisms were beneath the office and didn’t deserve any comment. I tend to agree with him, but the comments were getting out of hand.
The left and the Democrats have hurled every insult, every derogatory remark, every rotten tomato they had in their bag of dirty tricks at Mr. Bush.
They have tried to turn the country against him… all because they still believe he stole the 2000 election and lied about WMDs.
But, through all this...
President Bush has been a ROCK!
He has let none of this nonsense affect his performance...
but I’m sure it’s taken it’s toll on his self esteem.
But he’s a fighter. He’s a strong soul.
He has kept the country together even as the left has tried to tear it apart.
His values have kept him strong.
His faith has kept him strong.
His wife has kept him strong.
His commitment to America has kept him strong.
Sure, I might have done things a little differently, but, after all, I wasn’t dodging rotten tomatoes.
Thank you for your service, Mr. President!
Thank you very, very, much.
Oh... And one more thing.
For all you liberal Democrats out there that have been whining and crying for seven years about having 'your' election stolen...
and all of you misguided leftys that have been saying President Bush should be impeached and is the worst President ever...
and those of you mindless idiots that believe all those terrible nasty things said by the lefty Nancy Pelosi, Dingy Harry Reid, and the MainStream Media...
This is for you!
Wednesday, August 20, 2008
Was Saddleback a Blooper?
What the heck was going on at Saddleback?
I've been reading that Obama has accused McCain of cheating...
They say he somehow knew what the questions were going to be beforehand.
And McCain firing back that Obama couldn't answer the tough questions about abortion, saying that 'It was above his pay grade"!
Who Cares?!
And what the heck were the two Presidential candidates doing by having a quasi debate at a church? Who does this guy Rick Warren think he is that he can stage an event like this without proposing a winner and a loser?
Everybody says their guy won! So what was the point?
Who DID win? And, were there any losers - anywhere?
My money is on nobody... and US!
Nobody won because the event wasn't a contest, it was merely one man's(Warrens) attempt to inject himself into the presidential race. But why did he do this? Was it ego? Was it money? Was it really necessary?
The American people lost because we were exposed to a rather farcical portrayal of the election process. It was more like Dr. Phil interviewing Oprah, then Martha Stewart. What's up with that?
I don't think the event was necessary, but I do think something like this was a valuable lesson for us all.
It was unusual to say the least, but this has been a very unusual election season. First we had the right reverend Wright and his anti-American, black liberation theology on the front page of every newspaper and every TV for weeks. Then we had McCain denouncing Rev Haggee and any other preacher he could see from his limo.
We heard talk of Obama having a Muslim childhood - and that's still not resolved completely - and then that goofy priest, then the bomber Bill Ayers, then Michelle Obama dissing America.
We heard McCain say that he wanted to run a clean campaign and disavowed everyone who said BHO was a black man and from Chicago.
So somebody had to bring both of these fools down to earth. This is the first election I can remember in which religion was such a central issue. I guess it made sense for a well known pastor like Warren to try to mediate a truce or cease fire or at least a common understanding.
Did it work? I don't think so.
I think all it did was to give McCain a false sense of completion, a false sense of reason, a false sense of who BHO really is.
I think it emboldened BHO. It gave him credibility and confidence. It really didn't matter if he won or lost, he got to talk to a preacher who had compassion for him and made him look good and respectable. Unlike the image rev Wright gave us.
All in all, I think it was a bad idea. The founding fathers would not have approved of holding a presidential debate in a church - unless that was the only building available.
I don't think Washington would have approved, nor Jefferson, nor any of the others. It was way too touchy feely. Not Governmental, not Presidential at all.
Did we Americans approve? Frankly, I don't believe anybody really thought about it. It was just another TV event about the election. Some watched, most didn't.
Did Americans concern themselves with the implications of a minister refereeing a debate in a church?
I dare say... not one bit.
But maybe after all is said and done it will sink into the American consciousness that this election IS about religion.
Not about which religion, but about religious values - religious values that will be decided by the high court, the Supreme Court.
It's a choice between a Pro-Life guy like McCain... Or a Pro-Choice guy who thinks making decisions about abortion is 'above his pay grade'?
I know who I want to be choosing judges, and his name is John McCain.
EDIT: Here's what Bill Kristol had to say about the event
I've been reading that Obama has accused McCain of cheating...
They say he somehow knew what the questions were going to be beforehand.
And McCain firing back that Obama couldn't answer the tough questions about abortion, saying that 'It was above his pay grade"!
Who Cares?!
And what the heck were the two Presidential candidates doing by having a quasi debate at a church? Who does this guy Rick Warren think he is that he can stage an event like this without proposing a winner and a loser?
Everybody says their guy won! So what was the point?
Who DID win? And, were there any losers - anywhere?
My money is on nobody... and US!
Nobody won because the event wasn't a contest, it was merely one man's(Warrens) attempt to inject himself into the presidential race. But why did he do this? Was it ego? Was it money? Was it really necessary?
The American people lost because we were exposed to a rather farcical portrayal of the election process. It was more like Dr. Phil interviewing Oprah, then Martha Stewart. What's up with that?
I don't think the event was necessary, but I do think something like this was a valuable lesson for us all.
It was unusual to say the least, but this has been a very unusual election season. First we had the right reverend Wright and his anti-American, black liberation theology on the front page of every newspaper and every TV for weeks. Then we had McCain denouncing Rev Haggee and any other preacher he could see from his limo.
We heard talk of Obama having a Muslim childhood - and that's still not resolved completely - and then that goofy priest, then the bomber Bill Ayers, then Michelle Obama dissing America.
We heard McCain say that he wanted to run a clean campaign and disavowed everyone who said BHO was a black man and from Chicago.
So somebody had to bring both of these fools down to earth. This is the first election I can remember in which religion was such a central issue. I guess it made sense for a well known pastor like Warren to try to mediate a truce or cease fire or at least a common understanding.
Did it work? I don't think so.
I think all it did was to give McCain a false sense of completion, a false sense of reason, a false sense of who BHO really is.
I think it emboldened BHO. It gave him credibility and confidence. It really didn't matter if he won or lost, he got to talk to a preacher who had compassion for him and made him look good and respectable. Unlike the image rev Wright gave us.
All in all, I think it was a bad idea. The founding fathers would not have approved of holding a presidential debate in a church - unless that was the only building available.
I don't think Washington would have approved, nor Jefferson, nor any of the others. It was way too touchy feely. Not Governmental, not Presidential at all.
Did we Americans approve? Frankly, I don't believe anybody really thought about it. It was just another TV event about the election. Some watched, most didn't.
Did Americans concern themselves with the implications of a minister refereeing a debate in a church?
I dare say... not one bit.
But maybe after all is said and done it will sink into the American consciousness that this election IS about religion.
Not about which religion, but about religious values - religious values that will be decided by the high court, the Supreme Court.
It's a choice between a Pro-Life guy like McCain... Or a Pro-Choice guy who thinks making decisions about abortion is 'above his pay grade'?
I know who I want to be choosing judges, and his name is John McCain.
EDIT: Here's what Bill Kristol had to say about the event
Monday, August 18, 2008
Vincent Hancock Claims Olympic Gold Medal in Men’s Skeet
The U.S. Shooting Team added to its medal count at the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing today when 19-year-old Vincent Hancock (Eatonton, Ga.) captured the gold medal in Men’s Skeet.
U.S. Army Marksmanship Unit (USAMU) member Hancock, a world champion and world record holder in Men’s Skeet was in first place going into the final after hitting 121 out of a possible 125 targets in the qualification round, which is a new Olympic record.
Hancock shot 24 targets in the final to finish tied with Norway’s Tore Brovold, who shot a perfect 25, at 145 targets. Both shooters hit their first pair in the first shoot-off and in the second shoot-off, Brovold missed one of his targets, while Hancock hit both to claim the gold medal.
“I’ve always dreamed of getting gold and now I’ve got it,” said Hancock. “I like to deal with pressure and now its paid off. This is such an amazing feeling and I wouldn’t trade a minute of it.”
Brovold took the silver and Anthony Terras of France claimed the bronze in a shoot-off with Antonis Nikolaidis of Cyprus.
Sean McLelland (Mission, Texas) finished the qualification round tied for sixth place at 118 targets with six other shooters, but missed a target on his first pair in the shoot-off, failing to qualify for the six-person final. McLelland ended the competition in 11th place overall.
U.S. Army Staff Sgt. Keith Sanderson (San Antonio, Texas), a member of the World Class Athlete Program (WCAP) stationed at Ft. Carson, Colo., placed fifth in the Men's 25m Rapid Fire Pistol event.
Sanderson had a stellar qualifying round, scoring an Olympic record of 583 points and lead the field by two points entering the final round, which was the first time he has ever held the lead going into a final. Sanderson’s disappointing score of 193.6 in the final dropped him out of medal contention and he finished in fifth place overall with 776.6.
“I am happy with how I shot today in the regular match, but I shot horrible in the final and I am pretty disappointed,” said Sanderson. “I had a lot of fun in the qualification round though. I don’t always get to say I truly had fun in a match, but I can honestly say I had fun today. I wish it could’ve turned out different, but the whole Olympic experience has been great, especially being here to represent my country.”
The gold medal went to Oleksandr Petriv of the Ukraine, who shot an Olympic finals record of 780.2, including a 200.2 in the final round. Germany's Ralf Schumann took the silver with a 779.5, while Christian Reitz of Germany won the bronze medal with a 779.3.
The Men’s 50m 3 Position Rifle event will conclude the shooting competition at the 2008 Olympic Games in Beijing on Sunday with Matt Emmons (Browns Mills, N.J.), who just won the silver medal in men’s prone this past Friday, competing in his second event in Beijing.
Along with Emmons, USAMU member and two-time Olympian Jason Parker (Omaha, Neb.) will also be competing in his second event of the Games and will be vying for his first Olympic medal.
Saturday, August 16, 2008
Bush Still Raking In Cash For Republicans
This must come as a shock to all Democrats and many RINOs that have been swayed by the MSM attacks on The President, but, "(President) Bush has personally raised more than $968 million for the Republican Party, GOP candidates and his own re-election campaign and inauguration during his two terms in office. And he's not finished."
The President is still as popular as ever with those of us on the Right that knew he was doing the 'right thing'... Standing tall and protecting America!
There was never anything wrong with George Bush's presidency. There was never and impropriety, any scandel, anything untoward at all.
The left simply attacked the man because they percieved that he had stolen the 2000 election and left their guy, Algore out in the cold. Even after the Supreme Court settled the issue, the liberals continued to condemn the court's ruling as being unprecedented and Bush slanted!
Tuesday, Dec. 12—The U.S. Supreme Court rules in Bush v. Gore 7–2 to reverse the Florida Supreme Court, which had ordered manual recounts in certain counties. The Court contends that the recount was not treating all ballots equally, and was thus a violation of the Constitution's equal protection and due process guarantees.
The Supreme Court of Florida would be required to set up new voting standards and carry them out in a recount. The justices, however, split 5–4 along partisan lines about implementing a remedy. Five justices maintain that this process and the recount must adhere to the official deadline for certifying electoral college votes: midnight, Dec. 12; other justices question the importance of this date. Since the Court makes its ruling just hours before the deadline, it in effect ensures that it is too late for a recount. The decision generates enormous controversy.
Those objecting to the ruling assert that the Supreme Court, and not the electorate, has effectively determined the outcome of the presidential election. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg writes in a scathing dissent, “the Court’s conclusion that a constitutionally adequate recount is impractical is a prophecy the Court’s own judgment will not allow to be tested. Such an untested prophecy should not decide the Presidency of the United States.”
Wednesday, Dec. 13—In another decision, Florida Supreme Court decides not to hear an appeal from Gore asking that absentee ballots from Martin and Seminole counties be thrown out.
In televised speeches, Gore concedes, and Bush accepts the presidency.
Monday, Dec. 18—Electoral college representatives meet in state capitals and cast votes to select president.
Wednesday, Jan. 5—Congress meets to tally electoral college results.
Saturday, Jan. 20—George W. Bush sworn in as 43rd president of the United States.
So there it is. Sour Grapes!
The real reason the democrats hate President Bush.
And he beat them again in 2004!
They don't seem to get it. They lost! They got beat! They're losers!
But that didn't stop them from unleashing the most viscious, most vile, most un-American attack strategy they could imagine. Every newspaper, every TV network, every liberal internet source, carried the same mantra ... Bush Stole The Election!
Then came the war, and the left had a whole set of new issues to blame on the President. Bush Lied! Bush Is Arrogant! Bush Is A Idiot! Bush is stealing our civil liberties!
President Bush has been blamed for everything from making the rest of the world hate the US, to outing Valerie Plame, to creating hurricanes! You've heard them all I'm sure...
Frankly, it hasn't stopped in nearly 8 years! As I have previously noted in an earlier post, the Art of Bush Bashing is high culture!
But none of that nonsense has swayed those of us that admire the man and reapect him for holding the nation together during one of it's darkest hours. For taking on global terrorism at no matter the cost to his reputation. For standing tall for his principles and always putting the safety and security of Americans first.
Even now the left can't accept that the President still carries power and influence within the party. They quip with brilliant observations like this one from Josh Israel... "Until somebody else emerges as the party leader, the former guy is going to be a big draw."
The 'former guy', HA!
What a disgrace the Democrats have been revealed to be.
They are truely sore losers, constant whiners and vibrant liars.
The President is still as popular as ever with those of us on the Right that knew he was doing the 'right thing'... Standing tall and protecting America!
There was never anything wrong with George Bush's presidency. There was never and impropriety, any scandel, anything untoward at all.
The left simply attacked the man because they percieved that he had stolen the 2000 election and left their guy, Algore out in the cold. Even after the Supreme Court settled the issue, the liberals continued to condemn the court's ruling as being unprecedented and Bush slanted!
Tuesday, Dec. 12—The U.S. Supreme Court rules in Bush v. Gore 7–2 to reverse the Florida Supreme Court, which had ordered manual recounts in certain counties. The Court contends that the recount was not treating all ballots equally, and was thus a violation of the Constitution's equal protection and due process guarantees.
The Supreme Court of Florida would be required to set up new voting standards and carry them out in a recount. The justices, however, split 5–4 along partisan lines about implementing a remedy. Five justices maintain that this process and the recount must adhere to the official deadline for certifying electoral college votes: midnight, Dec. 12; other justices question the importance of this date. Since the Court makes its ruling just hours before the deadline, it in effect ensures that it is too late for a recount. The decision generates enormous controversy.
Those objecting to the ruling assert that the Supreme Court, and not the electorate, has effectively determined the outcome of the presidential election. As Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg writes in a scathing dissent, “the Court’s conclusion that a constitutionally adequate recount is impractical is a prophecy the Court’s own judgment will not allow to be tested. Such an untested prophecy should not decide the Presidency of the United States.”
Wednesday, Dec. 13—In another decision, Florida Supreme Court decides not to hear an appeal from Gore asking that absentee ballots from Martin and Seminole counties be thrown out.
In televised speeches, Gore concedes, and Bush accepts the presidency.
Monday, Dec. 18—Electoral college representatives meet in state capitals and cast votes to select president.
Wednesday, Jan. 5—Congress meets to tally electoral college results.
Saturday, Jan. 20—George W. Bush sworn in as 43rd president of the United States.
So there it is. Sour Grapes!
The real reason the democrats hate President Bush.
And he beat them again in 2004!
They don't seem to get it. They lost! They got beat! They're losers!
But that didn't stop them from unleashing the most viscious, most vile, most un-American attack strategy they could imagine. Every newspaper, every TV network, every liberal internet source, carried the same mantra ... Bush Stole The Election!
Then came the war, and the left had a whole set of new issues to blame on the President. Bush Lied! Bush Is Arrogant! Bush Is A Idiot! Bush is stealing our civil liberties!
President Bush has been blamed for everything from making the rest of the world hate the US, to outing Valerie Plame, to creating hurricanes! You've heard them all I'm sure...
Frankly, it hasn't stopped in nearly 8 years! As I have previously noted in an earlier post, the Art of Bush Bashing is high culture!
But none of that nonsense has swayed those of us that admire the man and reapect him for holding the nation together during one of it's darkest hours. For taking on global terrorism at no matter the cost to his reputation. For standing tall for his principles and always putting the safety and security of Americans first.
Even now the left can't accept that the President still carries power and influence within the party. They quip with brilliant observations like this one from Josh Israel... "Until somebody else emerges as the party leader, the former guy is going to be a big draw."
The 'former guy', HA!
What a disgrace the Democrats have been revealed to be.
They are truely sore losers, constant whiners and vibrant liars.
Thursday, August 14, 2008
American Kim Rhode Wins Silver in Skeet
THREE BATTLE IN DOWNPOUR FOR MEDALS . . .
Through torrential rains, women's skeet competitors battled in Beijing today, with American Kim Rhode claiming the silver medal in an exciting shoot-off. Italy's Chiara Cainero took the gold, while Germany's Christine Brinker won bronze.
All three shooters were tied at 93 targets after the finals and went into a shoot-off as the downpour intensified, the Associated Press reports. Cainero hit her first two targets to take the gold, as Rhode and Brinker both missed one. Rhode and Brinker continued into another shoot-off, with Rhode claiming the silver.
Rhode, 28, of El Monte, Calif., is now a four-time Olympic medalist. She won the gold in women's double trap in 1996 and 2004 as well as the bronze in 2000.
Rhode switched to skeet full-time after the women's double trap event was taken out of Olympic competition in 2004. "After double trap was eliminated in 2004, it was a bittersweet win for me," said Rhode. "On one hand I won the gold, but on the other hand I knew the challenge I faced in completely switching to skeet. I couldn't be happier with winning a medal today. Gold, silver or bronze, I don't think it matters. I am just so glad to be back at the Olympics and representing my country."
The Los Angeles Times on Wednesday featured a story and online video profiling Rhode.
In other shooting news, Jamie Beyerle, 24, of Lebanon, Pa., just missed out on a medal in the women's three-position rifle event. Beyerle finished in fifth place with an overall score of 686.9. Sandra Fong, 18, of New York, N.Y., also competing in women's three-position and the youngest member of the 2008 U.S. Olympic shooting team, finished in 21st place with a score of 577.
For complete coverage of the shooting events in Beijing, visit USAShooting.com and NBCOlympics.com.
Great going Kim!
And Congratulations to Jamie Beyerle... You'll get them next time Jamie!
And to Sandra Fong also. At 18 she has a very bright future ahead!
Well done ladies!
Tuesday, August 12, 2008
Eller Takes Double Trap Gold, Sets Olympic Record
The United States' Glenn Eller won the gold medal in double trap Tuesday, setting two Olympic records and claiming the second medal so far for the U.S. shooting team at the Beijing Olympics.
Eller began his day strong, setting a new Olympic record in qualifying for the final with a 145, and continuing his dominance through the final with a total score of 190, also a new Olympic record.
Eller, 26, of Katy, Texas, is a three-time Olympian. This is his first Olympic medal. A member of the U.S. Army Marksmanship Unit, he finished 12th at the Sydney Games and 17th in Athens.
The previous Olympic record of 144 was set by Ahmed Almaktoum of the United Arab Emirates at the 2004 Olympic Games in Athens. Almaktoum and Russell Mark of Australia (Atlanta 1996) were the previous final score record holders with 189.
After missing his first pair in the final, Eller ended up shooting 45 targets and finished with a total score of 190 targets, setting another Olympic record and taking home the gold.
“I was so happy after I won, but I didn’t know whether to cry, smile or jump up and down,” said Eller. “After my performances in the last two Olympics, I really wanted to come here and bring home a medal for the U.S. This is definitely one of the greatest moments of my life so far.”
Eller’s USAMU teammate Jeff Holguin (Yorba Linda, Calif.), who was competing for the U.S. on his first Olympic team, went into the final in third place with a score of 140, shot 42 targets in the final and ended in fourth place with an overall score of 182.
“I got off to a bad start and couldn’t really figure out what I was doing wrong,” Holguin said of his performance. “I came here to win; my goal wasn’t just to make the team. I am disappointed, but hats off to Glenn who is not only my teammate, but a good friend.”
D’ Aniello took the silver with 187 targets, while the bronze medal was won by Hu Binyuan of China with 184 targets.
_____________
Earlier...
For someone who has only been shooting her event competitively for a little over two years, 21-year-old Corey Cogdell looked like one of the most experienced trap shooters in the world on Monday in Beijing.
Cogdell, of Eagle River, Alaska, claimed the United States' first Olympic medal in shooting, winning bronze in women's international trap. "I wasn't even supposed to get on the Olympic team. My goal was to be on the 2012 Olympic team, so to win a medal at the Olympics at this point in my career is really a dream come true," said Cogdell, a former standout in NSSF's popular Scholastic Clay Target Program (SCTP).
Cogdell entered the final round just one target off the lead. In the 25-target final, she struggled early but finished strong, forcing a shoot-out with three other shooters for bronze. After each of the other shooters missed their targets, Cogdell came through in the clutch to claim her spot on the medal stand.
Full Story
Best of luck to all our Shooting Olympians!
We Are The Ones We Have Been Waiting For...
This is Fred J. Eckert's column from Human Events. I thought it was so spot on that it needed to be shared by as many people as possible. I reprint it here without permission but with full adknowledgement.
It's priceless!
What Some of Us Are Waiting For Is An Explanation
“We are the ones we have been waiting for.”
So says Barack Obama. Over and over and over. He said it in every primary election night speech. He said it in Berlin. He probably says it in his sleep.
It is the sort of line that sends a thrill up the leg of Chris Matthews, and it always seems to enthrall and energize the vast Obama cheerleading squad in the mainstream media.
Well, Barack, some of us are getting tired of waiting. Some of us would like to hear your answer to this question without having to wait any longer:
What is that dopey line supposed to mean?
You have never explained what you mean by it.
And no one in the media has ever bothered to ask you.
I’m asking.
And while I’m at it, here’s something else I must be too thick to figure out on my own: If we are the ones we have been waiting for, who has kept us waiting? Wouldn’t we be the ones who have kept ourselves waiting? Why would we do that?
Since Obama won’t volunteer the answers to these sorts of questions, and the media won’t ask him what they consider to be such tough ones, it occurs to me that the nicest thing I could do for Democrats and their media allies this week -- besides hosting a surprise baby shower for John Edwards -- would be to show them where Obama got that phrase that he loves so much and they cheer so loudly. Knowing his source might be interesting and educational for all of us.
Go on the web, enter www.google.com or www.yahoo.com, then search for “We are the ones we have been looking for.”
Up on your computer screen it pops -- it’s a book title. Amazon, Barnes and Noble and others carry it. Easy to find. Takes a few seconds of work, but even Democrats and mainstream media reporters can do it.
This simple exercise doesn’t tell us what the phrase means -- Obama will have to explain one day if the media could only be made sufficiently embarrassed to ask.
But by doing it, we discover from where their candidate “borrowed” it.
And this raises another interesting question the media has been negligent -- perhaps deliberately so -- in asking Barack Obama:
You were nice enough to credit your “like family” friend and mentor the Rev. Jeremiah Wright as being the source for the title of your book, The Audacity of Hope. So why have you never credited the author of a collection of essays titled We Are the Ones We Have Been Waiting For as being the source for this rallying call of yours?
Let me take a wild guess: It’s because she is another Reverand Wright type, anti-American Left wing extremist nutcase embarrassment.
As loony as Wright? As wrong as Wright? You got it!
Author Alice Walker, a well-known far Left feminist lesbian activist, has endorsed Obama with excitement and enthusiasm nearly matching that of Chris Matthews. Obama is, she proclaims, “not perfect but humanly stunning…We look at him…and are glad to be of our species.”
Others of our species that she goes gaga over include Fidel Castro: "What's not to like about the man?” she asks. “If Fidel could dance, he'd be perfect!" Imagine if Obama could bowl.
A segment of our species Walker seems to be especially fond of is convicted cop killers. She has more than once visited in prison one of America’s best-known cop killers, Mumia Abu-Jamal, a cause celeb of the far Left. He’s “a beautiful person” and “compassionate,” she tells us, “he has a lot of light.” Besides, she has a feeling that what he was actually doing at the scene where the police officer was murdered was just “trying to help.”
The bullet extracted from the dead officer’s brain matched the five spent shells that were in the gun registered to her beautiful person/compassionate friend -- the gun he had with him at the scene, the gun he attempted to keep away from police arriving at the scene of the murder, the gun that fit into the holster he was wearing. And there was a return bullet from the police officer’s gun in his chest.
So what if a jury convicted him, so what if five eyewitnesses implicated him, so what if he subsequently screamed, “If you let me go, I’ll kill all of you cops.” So what if even the likes of Michael Moore has pronounced him guilty as charged? To the nuttiest of the Loony Left -- which includes this woman from whom Obama gets his rallying call -- this cop killer is their kind of guy.
Being such a good feminist, Ms. Walker also has a female convicted cop killer among her favorites -- former Black Panther and Black Liberation Army leader Assata Shakur, who escaped prison and was granted “political asylum” in Castro’s Cuba. Walker says she has a feeling -- there she goes again! -- that the woman didn’t mean to kill the cop (she was involved in a shootout when she killed him).
Can we possibly find anything nuttier about her? Yes, we can! Yes, we can!
Walker’s advice on how we need to deal with Osama bin Laden: 1) We need to “remind him of all the good, nonviolent things he has done,” and 2) we need to convince him to understand “the preciousness of the lives” of the people he’s killed. Of course, in the matter of preciousness of life, she is pro-abortion and has had one.
She doesn’t like religions, especially the Catholic Church. And she says the real problem in the Middle East is the Jews.
It’s all enough to make one wonder:
What if Republicans began asking Obama to explain why he turned to the likes of a loon like Alice Walker for that idiotic rallying call of his -- and why he has never given her the recognition she deserves for it. Do you suppose the mainstream media would report that?
Nah.
And what if Republicans asked Obama what he thought of each of his message maker’s various wacky pronouncements? Would the mainstream media report that?
Nah.
The mainstream media will probably be too busy telling us all about what they are sure to see as the next truly interesting story: Obama’s vacation in Hawaii.
Hawaii, by the way, would be the perfect place for the media to ask Alice Walker’s slogan-stealing dream candidate what he thinks of yet another one of her nutcase views: “People should know that Hawaii is a country and should be respected as such," she tells us. "Because it was forcibly annexed to the United States does not mean that it is the U.S., except by conquest.
"These are the sorts of questions we have been waiting for the media to ask Barack Obama.
And waiting.
And waiting.
And waiting.
Fred J. Eckert is a former conservative Republican Congressman from New York and twice served as a US Ambassador under President Reagan. He is currently writing a second comic political satire novel; his first, Hank Harrison for President, was hailed by Library Journal as 'one of the best political spoofs since The Mouse That Roared'.
It's priceless!
What Some of Us Are Waiting For Is An Explanation
“We are the ones we have been waiting for.”
So says Barack Obama. Over and over and over. He said it in every primary election night speech. He said it in Berlin. He probably says it in his sleep.
It is the sort of line that sends a thrill up the leg of Chris Matthews, and it always seems to enthrall and energize the vast Obama cheerleading squad in the mainstream media.
Well, Barack, some of us are getting tired of waiting. Some of us would like to hear your answer to this question without having to wait any longer:
What is that dopey line supposed to mean?
You have never explained what you mean by it.
And no one in the media has ever bothered to ask you.
I’m asking.
And while I’m at it, here’s something else I must be too thick to figure out on my own: If we are the ones we have been waiting for, who has kept us waiting? Wouldn’t we be the ones who have kept ourselves waiting? Why would we do that?
Since Obama won’t volunteer the answers to these sorts of questions, and the media won’t ask him what they consider to be such tough ones, it occurs to me that the nicest thing I could do for Democrats and their media allies this week -- besides hosting a surprise baby shower for John Edwards -- would be to show them where Obama got that phrase that he loves so much and they cheer so loudly. Knowing his source might be interesting and educational for all of us.
Go on the web, enter www.google.com or www.yahoo.com, then search for “We are the ones we have been looking for.”
Up on your computer screen it pops -- it’s a book title. Amazon, Barnes and Noble and others carry it. Easy to find. Takes a few seconds of work, but even Democrats and mainstream media reporters can do it.
This simple exercise doesn’t tell us what the phrase means -- Obama will have to explain one day if the media could only be made sufficiently embarrassed to ask.
But by doing it, we discover from where their candidate “borrowed” it.
And this raises another interesting question the media has been negligent -- perhaps deliberately so -- in asking Barack Obama:
You were nice enough to credit your “like family” friend and mentor the Rev. Jeremiah Wright as being the source for the title of your book, The Audacity of Hope. So why have you never credited the author of a collection of essays titled We Are the Ones We Have Been Waiting For as being the source for this rallying call of yours?
Let me take a wild guess: It’s because she is another Reverand Wright type, anti-American Left wing extremist nutcase embarrassment.
As loony as Wright? As wrong as Wright? You got it!
Author Alice Walker, a well-known far Left feminist lesbian activist, has endorsed Obama with excitement and enthusiasm nearly matching that of Chris Matthews. Obama is, she proclaims, “not perfect but humanly stunning…We look at him…and are glad to be of our species.”
Others of our species that she goes gaga over include Fidel Castro: "What's not to like about the man?” she asks. “If Fidel could dance, he'd be perfect!" Imagine if Obama could bowl.
A segment of our species Walker seems to be especially fond of is convicted cop killers. She has more than once visited in prison one of America’s best-known cop killers, Mumia Abu-Jamal, a cause celeb of the far Left. He’s “a beautiful person” and “compassionate,” she tells us, “he has a lot of light.” Besides, she has a feeling that what he was actually doing at the scene where the police officer was murdered was just “trying to help.”
The bullet extracted from the dead officer’s brain matched the five spent shells that were in the gun registered to her beautiful person/compassionate friend -- the gun he had with him at the scene, the gun he attempted to keep away from police arriving at the scene of the murder, the gun that fit into the holster he was wearing. And there was a return bullet from the police officer’s gun in his chest.
So what if a jury convicted him, so what if five eyewitnesses implicated him, so what if he subsequently screamed, “If you let me go, I’ll kill all of you cops.” So what if even the likes of Michael Moore has pronounced him guilty as charged? To the nuttiest of the Loony Left -- which includes this woman from whom Obama gets his rallying call -- this cop killer is their kind of guy.
Being such a good feminist, Ms. Walker also has a female convicted cop killer among her favorites -- former Black Panther and Black Liberation Army leader Assata Shakur, who escaped prison and was granted “political asylum” in Castro’s Cuba. Walker says she has a feeling -- there she goes again! -- that the woman didn’t mean to kill the cop (she was involved in a shootout when she killed him).
Can we possibly find anything nuttier about her? Yes, we can! Yes, we can!
Walker’s advice on how we need to deal with Osama bin Laden: 1) We need to “remind him of all the good, nonviolent things he has done,” and 2) we need to convince him to understand “the preciousness of the lives” of the people he’s killed. Of course, in the matter of preciousness of life, she is pro-abortion and has had one.
She doesn’t like religions, especially the Catholic Church. And she says the real problem in the Middle East is the Jews.
It’s all enough to make one wonder:
What if Republicans began asking Obama to explain why he turned to the likes of a loon like Alice Walker for that idiotic rallying call of his -- and why he has never given her the recognition she deserves for it. Do you suppose the mainstream media would report that?
Nah.
And what if Republicans asked Obama what he thought of each of his message maker’s various wacky pronouncements? Would the mainstream media report that?
Nah.
The mainstream media will probably be too busy telling us all about what they are sure to see as the next truly interesting story: Obama’s vacation in Hawaii.
Hawaii, by the way, would be the perfect place for the media to ask Alice Walker’s slogan-stealing dream candidate what he thinks of yet another one of her nutcase views: “People should know that Hawaii is a country and should be respected as such," she tells us. "Because it was forcibly annexed to the United States does not mean that it is the U.S., except by conquest.
"These are the sorts of questions we have been waiting for the media to ask Barack Obama.
And waiting.
And waiting.
And waiting.
Fred J. Eckert is a former conservative Republican Congressman from New York and twice served as a US Ambassador under President Reagan. He is currently writing a second comic political satire novel; his first, Hank Harrison for President, was hailed by Library Journal as 'one of the best political spoofs since The Mouse That Roared'.
Friday, August 8, 2008
Brett Is A Jet!
GREEN BAY, Wis. — The Brett Favre era in Green Bay is now officially over. But Favre's legendary career is not.
The month-long saga has finally come to an end, with the Packers agreeing to trade their future Hall-of-Fame quarterback to the New York Jets, FOXSports.com has learned.
The exact compensation was not immediately known, but it is believed to be a single draft pick that increases in value depending upon how the Jets perform during the 2008 season.
As a result of this, the Jets will likely release a quarterback. Signs have been pointing to Chad Pennington as the likely culprit because the team will need to free up cap room to fit Favre's Favre's contract under the salary cap.
VIDEO
ADDENDUM:
I've been thinking for quite a while about Brett and his retirement message of last spring/winter. I wondered then if he didnt have something else on his mind about Green Bay. Why would he want to retire in Green Bay, then move back to Mississippi and farm. I know he loves farming, hunting and roaming the land, but it just didn't set right with me.
I first thought, OK retire from the Packers and go fishing and hunting. Then I thought, I don't think I would do that!
Then it struck me about the long distance commute and the severe weather difference. Then I remembered that Katrina nearly wiped out his family residences and maybe he was saddened by the loss to the point of leaving Mississippi altogether.
His wife does a lot of charity work and Mississippi isn't the hub of society. So another location, another city didn't seem that far fetched. Then when all this idiocy from the Packers happened - wanting to pay him $20Mil just to sit in his boat and do a couple of appearances each year - It just didn't seem right.
I really think he and Diana had something in their mind about getting to 'the big city' and savoring the celebrity. Maybe enjoying their salad years in the limelight wasn't such a bad thing after all. GB didn't want to do right by him, Mississippi was a mess, so why not try for the Big Apple?
I think the rumors about Tampa Bay were just that - rumors. Gruden is not Brett's kind of guy. New York was the right fit. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that he buys a farm or something. Just wait until he hears about NY's and NJs gun laws! He'll flip his lid!
But New York or New Jersey is a great place to live if you have the coin - and he's got it! So it may work out for the best. Now, lets see if he can make the Jets into a contender that can do battle with The Patriots!
The month-long saga has finally come to an end, with the Packers agreeing to trade their future Hall-of-Fame quarterback to the New York Jets, FOXSports.com has learned.
The exact compensation was not immediately known, but it is believed to be a single draft pick that increases in value depending upon how the Jets perform during the 2008 season.
As a result of this, the Jets will likely release a quarterback. Signs have been pointing to Chad Pennington as the likely culprit because the team will need to free up cap room to fit Favre's Favre's contract under the salary cap.
VIDEO
ADDENDUM:
I've been thinking for quite a while about Brett and his retirement message of last spring/winter. I wondered then if he didnt have something else on his mind about Green Bay. Why would he want to retire in Green Bay, then move back to Mississippi and farm. I know he loves farming, hunting and roaming the land, but it just didn't set right with me.
I first thought, OK retire from the Packers and go fishing and hunting. Then I thought, I don't think I would do that!
Then it struck me about the long distance commute and the severe weather difference. Then I remembered that Katrina nearly wiped out his family residences and maybe he was saddened by the loss to the point of leaving Mississippi altogether.
His wife does a lot of charity work and Mississippi isn't the hub of society. So another location, another city didn't seem that far fetched. Then when all this idiocy from the Packers happened - wanting to pay him $20Mil just to sit in his boat and do a couple of appearances each year - It just didn't seem right.
I really think he and Diana had something in their mind about getting to 'the big city' and savoring the celebrity. Maybe enjoying their salad years in the limelight wasn't such a bad thing after all. GB didn't want to do right by him, Mississippi was a mess, so why not try for the Big Apple?
I think the rumors about Tampa Bay were just that - rumors. Gruden is not Brett's kind of guy. New York was the right fit. I wouldn't be surprised to hear that he buys a farm or something. Just wait until he hears about NY's and NJs gun laws! He'll flip his lid!
But New York or New Jersey is a great place to live if you have the coin - and he's got it! So it may work out for the best. Now, lets see if he can make the Jets into a contender that can do battle with The Patriots!
Thursday, August 7, 2008
The Communist Party Backs Obama!
Most of us already know that Barack Hussien Obama is a Marxist, a 'world citizen', an America hater, masquerading as a candidate for office of The President of The United States of America.
But did you know he has the backing of the Communist Party?
Umm-hmm, that's right. The Communist Party USA has posted an editorial supporting BHO and the 'struggle' to defeat the 'ultra right'.
Here's the uh, article...
Barack Obama is not a left candidate. This fact has seemingly surprised a number of progressive people who are bemoaning Obama’s “shift to the center.” (Right-wingers are happy to join them, suggesting Obama is a “flip-flopper.”) It’s sad that some who seek progressive change are missing the forest for the trees. But they will not dampen the wide and deep enthusiasm for blocking a third Bush term represented by John McCain, or for bringing Obama by a landslide into the White House with a large Democratic congressional majority.
A broad multiclass, multiracial movement is converging around Obama’s “Hope, change and unity” campaign because they see in it the thrilling opportunity to end 30 years of ultra-right rule and move our nation forward with a broadly progressive agenda.
This diverse movement combines a variety of political currents and aims in a working coalition that is crucial to social progress at this point. At the core are America’s working families, of all hues and ethnicities, whose determination to move forward does not depend on, and will not be diverted by, the daily twists and turns of this watershed presidential campaign. They are taking the long view.
Notably, the labor movement has stepped up its independent mobilization for this election. It is leading an unprecedented campaign to educate and unify its ranks to elect the nation’s first African American president. Last week, AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka told the Steelworkers convention that there is “no evil that’s inflicted more pain and more suffering than racism — and it’s something we in the labor movement have a special responsibility to challenge.”
If Obama’s candidacy represented nothing more than the spark for this profound initiative to unite the working class and defeat the pernicious influence of racism, it would be a transformative candidacy that would advance progressive politics for the long term.
The struggle to defeat the ultra-right and turn our country on a positive path will not end with Obama’s election. But that step will shift the ground for successful struggles going forward.
One thing is clear. None of the people’s struggles — from peace to universal health care to an economy that puts Main Street before Wall Street — will advance if McCain wins in November.
Let’s keep our eyes on the prize.
So there ya go.
Subversion at is core.
We can only hope that America will open it's eyes to this threat and realize that while the USSR has mainly gone away, the Communist Party with their determination and their desire to dominate the world is still quite alive.
Stay alert America!
But did you know he has the backing of the Communist Party?
Umm-hmm, that's right. The Communist Party USA has posted an editorial supporting BHO and the 'struggle' to defeat the 'ultra right'.
Here's the uh, article...
Barack Obama is not a left candidate. This fact has seemingly surprised a number of progressive people who are bemoaning Obama’s “shift to the center.” (Right-wingers are happy to join them, suggesting Obama is a “flip-flopper.”) It’s sad that some who seek progressive change are missing the forest for the trees. But they will not dampen the wide and deep enthusiasm for blocking a third Bush term represented by John McCain, or for bringing Obama by a landslide into the White House with a large Democratic congressional majority.
A broad multiclass, multiracial movement is converging around Obama’s “Hope, change and unity” campaign because they see in it the thrilling opportunity to end 30 years of ultra-right rule and move our nation forward with a broadly progressive agenda.
This diverse movement combines a variety of political currents and aims in a working coalition that is crucial to social progress at this point. At the core are America’s working families, of all hues and ethnicities, whose determination to move forward does not depend on, and will not be diverted by, the daily twists and turns of this watershed presidential campaign. They are taking the long view.
Notably, the labor movement has stepped up its independent mobilization for this election. It is leading an unprecedented campaign to educate and unify its ranks to elect the nation’s first African American president. Last week, AFL-CIO Secretary-Treasurer Richard Trumka told the Steelworkers convention that there is “no evil that’s inflicted more pain and more suffering than racism — and it’s something we in the labor movement have a special responsibility to challenge.”
If Obama’s candidacy represented nothing more than the spark for this profound initiative to unite the working class and defeat the pernicious influence of racism, it would be a transformative candidacy that would advance progressive politics for the long term.
The struggle to defeat the ultra-right and turn our country on a positive path will not end with Obama’s election. But that step will shift the ground for successful struggles going forward.
One thing is clear. None of the people’s struggles — from peace to universal health care to an economy that puts Main Street before Wall Street — will advance if McCain wins in November.
Let’s keep our eyes on the prize.
So there ya go.
Subversion at is core.
We can only hope that America will open it's eyes to this threat and realize that while the USSR has mainly gone away, the Communist Party with their determination and their desire to dominate the world is still quite alive.
Stay alert America!
Wednesday, August 6, 2008
Where's The Breck Girl When Ya need him?
When I read this story from Ann Coulter I darn near split a gut laughing!
She's hit it right on!
The Breck Girl and his 'love child' sex scandal have been totally wiped off the radar of the MainStream Media. Have you heard anything about this?
Has anybody?
They put it down to the fact that the National Enquirer broke the story - that's right the very same National Enquirer that we have grown to love and hate.
Here's Ann's story... Enjoy!
ONLY HIS HAIR DRESSER KNOWS FOR SURE!
The mainstream media's reaction to the National Enquirer's reports on John Edwards' "love child" scandal has been reminiscent of the Soviet press. Edwards' name has simply been completely whitewashed out of the news. Say, why isn't anyone talking about John Edwards for vice president anymore? No, seriously –- hey! Why are we going to a commercial break?
I suspect that if I tried to look up coverage of the Democratic primaries in Nexis news archives, Edwards' name will have disappeared from the debates. By next week, Edwards won't have been John Kerry's running mate in 2004.
Do you know what this means? At this precise moment in time, I could call Edwards a name that would send me to rehab, and the media wouldn't be able to report it!
A Washington Post reporter defended the total blackout on the National Enquirer's John Edwards' love child story, telling the Times of London: "Edwards is no longer an elected official and he is not running for office now. Don't expect wall-to-wall coverage." This was the perfect guy to talk to because if there's one thing they're careful about in London, it's tabloid excess.
Isn't there some level of coverage between "wall-to-wall" and "double-secret probation, delta-force level total news blackout" when it comes to a sex scandal involving a current Democratic vice presidential and Cabinet prospect?
Hey, what sort of "elected official" was Ted Haggard again? He was the Christian minister no one outside of his own parish had ever heard of until he was caught in a gay sex scandal last year. Then he suddenly became the Pope of the Protestants. And yet, despite the fact that Haggard was not an "elected official," the Post gave that story wall-to-wall coverage. And what sort of "elected officials" were Mel Gibson, Rush Limbaugh and Bill Bennett?
The MSM justify banner coverage of the smallest malfeasance by any Christian or conservative, with or without independent verification, with the lame excuse of "hypocrisy." Hey, why didn't you say so! If all it takes to get the Edwards story into the establishment press is a little hypocrisy, boy, have I got a story for you!
Based on information currently saturating the Internet: (1) The entire schmaltzy Edwards campaign consisted of this self-professed moralist telling us how much he loved the poor and loved his cancer-stricken wife; (2) the following was Edwards' response to CBS News anchor Katie Couric's question about whether voters should care if a presidential candidate is faithful to his spouse: "
Of course. I mean, for a lot of Americans -- including the family that I grew up with, I mean, it's fundamental to how you judge people and human character -- whether you keep your word, whether you keep what is your ultimate word, which is that you love your spouse, and you'll stay with them. ... I think the most important qualities in a president in today's world are trustworthiness -- sincerity, honesty, strength of leadership. And -- and certainly that goes to a part of that."
There you have it, boys: Go to town, MSM!
Moreover, the National Enquirer reports that Edwards is paying Rielle Hunter -- the former "Lisa Druck" -- $15,000 a month in "hush money." Shouldn't the IRS be investigating whether Edwards is deducting those payments as a "business expense"?
Maybe The Washington Post didn't hear about the Enquirer catching Edwards in a hotel with his mistress and love child since it happened way out in the sleepy little burg of Los Angeles near the corner of Wilshire and Santa Monica Boulevards -- you know, the middle of nowhere. But surely the public can count on the Los Angeles Times to report on a tabloid scandal occurring under its very nose.
Kausfiles produced this e-mail from an L.A. Times editor to its bloggers soon after the Enquirer's stakeout of Edwards visiting the alleged mistress and love child at the Beverly Hilton:
From: "Pierce, Tony" Date: July 24, 2008 10:54:41 AM PDT Subject: john edwards
Hey bloggers,
There has been a little buzz surrounding John Edwards and his alleged affair. Because the only source has been the National Enquirer we have decided not to cover the rumors or salacious speculations. So I am asking you all not to blog about this topic until further notified.
If you have any questions or are ever in need of story ideas that would best fit your blog, please don't hesitate to ask.
Keep rockin,
Tony
Hey, I have a story idea I think the L.A. Times might like: How about something on the glorious workers' revolution that will restore the means of production to the people and create a workers' paradise right here on Earth, free of the shackles of capitalism?
I assume it would be jejune to point out that the MSM would be taking the wall-to-wall approach, rather than the total blackout approach, to the love child story if it were a story about Mitt Romney's love child or, indeed, Larry Craig's love child. They'd bring Ted Koppel out of retirement to cover that. Katie Couric, Brian Williams and Charles Gibson would be anchoring the evening news from Romney's front yard. They might even get Dan Rather to produce some forged documents for the occasion.
But with a Democrat sex scandal, the L.A. Times is in a nail-biting competition with The Washington Post, The New York Times, ABC, NBC and CBS for the Pulitzer for "Best Suppressed Story."
COPYRIGHT 2008 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111
She is sooooo good!
She's hit it right on!
The Breck Girl and his 'love child' sex scandal have been totally wiped off the radar of the MainStream Media. Have you heard anything about this?
Has anybody?
They put it down to the fact that the National Enquirer broke the story - that's right the very same National Enquirer that we have grown to love and hate.
Here's Ann's story... Enjoy!
ONLY HIS HAIR DRESSER KNOWS FOR SURE!
The mainstream media's reaction to the National Enquirer's reports on John Edwards' "love child" scandal has been reminiscent of the Soviet press. Edwards' name has simply been completely whitewashed out of the news. Say, why isn't anyone talking about John Edwards for vice president anymore? No, seriously –- hey! Why are we going to a commercial break?
I suspect that if I tried to look up coverage of the Democratic primaries in Nexis news archives, Edwards' name will have disappeared from the debates. By next week, Edwards won't have been John Kerry's running mate in 2004.
Do you know what this means? At this precise moment in time, I could call Edwards a name that would send me to rehab, and the media wouldn't be able to report it!
A Washington Post reporter defended the total blackout on the National Enquirer's John Edwards' love child story, telling the Times of London: "Edwards is no longer an elected official and he is not running for office now. Don't expect wall-to-wall coverage." This was the perfect guy to talk to because if there's one thing they're careful about in London, it's tabloid excess.
Isn't there some level of coverage between "wall-to-wall" and "double-secret probation, delta-force level total news blackout" when it comes to a sex scandal involving a current Democratic vice presidential and Cabinet prospect?
Hey, what sort of "elected official" was Ted Haggard again? He was the Christian minister no one outside of his own parish had ever heard of until he was caught in a gay sex scandal last year. Then he suddenly became the Pope of the Protestants. And yet, despite the fact that Haggard was not an "elected official," the Post gave that story wall-to-wall coverage. And what sort of "elected officials" were Mel Gibson, Rush Limbaugh and Bill Bennett?
The MSM justify banner coverage of the smallest malfeasance by any Christian or conservative, with or without independent verification, with the lame excuse of "hypocrisy." Hey, why didn't you say so! If all it takes to get the Edwards story into the establishment press is a little hypocrisy, boy, have I got a story for you!
Based on information currently saturating the Internet: (1) The entire schmaltzy Edwards campaign consisted of this self-professed moralist telling us how much he loved the poor and loved his cancer-stricken wife; (2) the following was Edwards' response to CBS News anchor Katie Couric's question about whether voters should care if a presidential candidate is faithful to his spouse: "
Of course. I mean, for a lot of Americans -- including the family that I grew up with, I mean, it's fundamental to how you judge people and human character -- whether you keep your word, whether you keep what is your ultimate word, which is that you love your spouse, and you'll stay with them. ... I think the most important qualities in a president in today's world are trustworthiness -- sincerity, honesty, strength of leadership. And -- and certainly that goes to a part of that."
There you have it, boys: Go to town, MSM!
Moreover, the National Enquirer reports that Edwards is paying Rielle Hunter -- the former "Lisa Druck" -- $15,000 a month in "hush money." Shouldn't the IRS be investigating whether Edwards is deducting those payments as a "business expense"?
Maybe The Washington Post didn't hear about the Enquirer catching Edwards in a hotel with his mistress and love child since it happened way out in the sleepy little burg of Los Angeles near the corner of Wilshire and Santa Monica Boulevards -- you know, the middle of nowhere. But surely the public can count on the Los Angeles Times to report on a tabloid scandal occurring under its very nose.
Kausfiles produced this e-mail from an L.A. Times editor to its bloggers soon after the Enquirer's stakeout of Edwards visiting the alleged mistress and love child at the Beverly Hilton:
From: "Pierce, Tony" Date: July 24, 2008 10:54:41 AM PDT Subject: john edwards
Hey bloggers,
There has been a little buzz surrounding John Edwards and his alleged affair. Because the only source has been the National Enquirer we have decided not to cover the rumors or salacious speculations. So I am asking you all not to blog about this topic until further notified.
If you have any questions or are ever in need of story ideas that would best fit your blog, please don't hesitate to ask.
Keep rockin,
Tony
Hey, I have a story idea I think the L.A. Times might like: How about something on the glorious workers' revolution that will restore the means of production to the people and create a workers' paradise right here on Earth, free of the shackles of capitalism?
I assume it would be jejune to point out that the MSM would be taking the wall-to-wall approach, rather than the total blackout approach, to the love child story if it were a story about Mitt Romney's love child or, indeed, Larry Craig's love child. They'd bring Ted Koppel out of retirement to cover that. Katie Couric, Brian Williams and Charles Gibson would be anchoring the evening news from Romney's front yard. They might even get Dan Rather to produce some forged documents for the occasion.
But with a Democrat sex scandal, the L.A. Times is in a nail-biting competition with The Washington Post, The New York Times, ABC, NBC and CBS for the Pulitzer for "Best Suppressed Story."
COPYRIGHT 2008 ANN COULTER
DISTRIBUTED BY UNIVERSAL PRESS SYNDICATE
4520 Main Street, Kansas City, MO 64111
She is sooooo good!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
