All Da King's Men

Attention Haters, Palin And Hannity Together

by Da King on November 19, 2009

Why bother watching Olbermann or Maddow go after Sarah Palin, when you can get a two-fer by watching both Sarah Palin and Sean Hannity together in one interview ?!?! Here it is from the source, undiluted. Grab yourself a veggie burger and a soy latte, and get your hate on.

My favorite line ? Palin actually referred to the liberal elitist tabloid hate press as "the lamestream media." How can I not like that ? I use the term myself, and they haven't even attacked my family, as they have Palin's. She has earned the right.

{ 21 comments }

Nearly Two-Thirds Of Americans Are Unamerican

by Da King on November 18, 2009

in Democrats, Uncategorized, White House administration, courts, detainee rights, national security, terrorism, war

Democratic Congressman Jim Moran (D-VA) says those opposing terror trials in New York City for Khalid Shaikh Mohammed and other 9/11 plotters are unamerican:

"[Republicans] see this as an opportunity to demagogue," he said. "They will seize on any opportunity to do that, and that means they'll even take a stand that's un-American."

"It's un-American to hold anyone indefinitely without trial," Moran added. "It's against our principles as a nation."

The feeble-minded Moran is demagoguing the issue even as he accuses others of the same thing. The "unamerican" opposition wants the 9/11 plotters tried, they just want them tried by military tribunals, instead of putting on media circus show trials in the Big Apple.

A CNN poll showed that 64% of Americans want KSM and friends tried by military tribunals. Who knew there were so many unamerican Americans ?

Among the unamerican Americans…..

The family of Daniel Pearl, the Wall Street Journal reporter who was beheaded by KSM:

"We are sorry to learn of the Justice Department decision to try KSM in a NYC Federal Court.

We are respectful of the legal process, but believe that giving confessed terrorists a worldwide platform to publicize their ideology sends the wrong message to potential terrorists, inviting them in essence, to resort to violence and cruelty in order to gain publicity.

We believe that justice is better served if the trial of KSM, the confessed murderer of Daniel Pearl, be held in closed session."

Another unamerican American is the Democratic Governor of New York, David Paterson, who told the Daily News:

"This is not a decision that I would have made…Our country was attacked on its own soil on Sept. 11, 2001, and New York was very much the epicenter of that attack. Over 2,700 lives were lost. It's very painful; we're still having trouble getting over it. We still haven't been able to rebuild that site, and having those terrorists tried so close to the attack is going to be an encumbrance on all of New Yorkers."

In my last post on this subject, I wrote about the hundreds of family members of 9/11 victims who oppose holding the trials in NYC…what a bunch of lousy unamerican sob's they are.

To make all us unamericans feel even better, ACLU attorneys are saying it's probable that KSM and company will serve as their own attorneys during the trial. Fan-freaking-tastic !

"The chances are excellent that he [KSM] represents himself," said Ron Kuby, a defense lawyer known for taking on controversial clients.

"[KSM's] goal in the legal system is not to beat the rap. His goal is to use the legal system as a forum for his own ideas and to embrace martyrdom through that system."

"It's quite possible that these defendants will undertake to represent themselves," Ben Wizner said. "They've been trying to fire their lawyers the whole time so they can be executed."

Nothing like giving KSM his own personal soapbox, so he can serve as an inspiration to terrorists everywhere.

Noted defense lawyer Alan Dershowitz chimes in with some KSM defense strategy:

Lawyers could seize on the time it's taken to prosecute the accused terrorists, arguing that they were denied their constitutional rights to a speedy trial.

A crafty defense lawyer might also employ a tactic called "graymailing," demanding reams of classified information in the hope that prosecutors refuse to release them. That provides an opening for a lawyer to request the indictment be dismissed.

Torture is also likely to play a central role in the case.

That Mohammed was waterboarded more than 180 times by CIA investigators is no secret.

"The first thing they're going to do is challenge all of the evidence and say all of it is the fruit of waterboarding," Dershowitz said.

Some intrepid reporter somewhere has to ask Attorney General Eric Holder or President Obama if they plan to release KSM if he is acquitted. I'd love to hear the answer to that question.

Returning to Congressman Moran's statement about it being unamerican to hold detainees indefinitely without any type of trial, I'm wondering, which people are recommending such a thing ???

Well, there's THIS guy:

President Barack Obama has quietly decided to bypass Congress and allow the indefinite detention of terrorist suspects without charges…Such a decision allows the president to unilaterally hold "combatants" without habeas corpus — a legal term literally meaning "you shall have the body" — which forces prosecutors to charge a suspect with a crime to justify the suspect's detention. Obama's decision was buried on page A 23 of The New York Times' New York edition on Thursday…"The administration will continue to hold the detainees without bringing them to trial based on the power it says it has under the Congressional resolution passed after the attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, authorizing the president to use force against forces of Al Qaeda and the Taliban," the Times' Peter Baker writes. "In concluding that it does not need specific permission from Congress to hold detainees without charges, the Obama administration is adopting one of the arguments advanced by the Bush administration in years of debates about detention policies."

Looks like Congressman Moran, in his overzealous haste to attack Republicans, has inadvertently called his pal Obama unamerican. Oops.

{ 14 comments }

Why Would You Believe This Man ?

by Da King on November 17, 2009

in Uncategorized, White House administration

When I found out that the Associated Press had eleven reporters furiously fact-checking Sarah Palin's new book, illustrating that Palin Derangement Syndrome has not yet subsided (and did you hear the over-the-top Palin attacks by MSNBC and CNN last night ?), I thought maybe we should examine some statements made by a more important person, namely (in Michael Buffer's boxing announcer voice)….the Leader Of The Free World, the Teleprompter In Chief, the Apologist To The World, the Fence-Sittter General, The Preeeeeeee-sident Of The United Staaates…Barack Husseeeeeeeeeeeeein Obama !

Let's look at some of his statements, since the press rarely does.

Obama: "I can make a firm pledge, under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes."

King: Except for your cigarette taxes, health care fines, health care reform taxes, cap-and-trade taxes, etc, etc.
—
Obama: "I don't take a dime of their [lobbyist] money, and when I am president, they won't find a job in my White House."

King: Whatever, Barry. You had lobbyists on your campaign, your transition team, and you have them in your White House. (link)
—
Obama: "I found this national debt, doubled, wrapped in a big bow waiting for me as I stepped into the Oval Office."

King: Yes, and now you're doubling it again, so shut up.
—
Obama: "I've got two daughters. 9 years old and 6 years old. I am going to teach them first of all about values and morals. But if they make a mistake, I don't want them punished with a baby."

King: I'll let Obama rebut himself on this one (he rebuts himself a LOT).

Obama: "No one is pro-abortion."

King: You are, Mr. President. You didn't even vote against partial birth abortions.
—
Obama: "It's not surprising, then, they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."

King: Keep your bigoted sentiments to yourself, sir.
—
Obama: "John Kerry believes in an America where hard work is rewarded."

King: I guess so, if you consider it "hard work" to make your name by trashing your own troops in Vietnam and then marrying two different rich heiresses, as John Kerry did.
—
Obama: "My administration is the only thing between you [CEO's] and the pitchforks."

King: Um, was that a threat ? Stay classy, President Thug.
—
Obama: "Over the last 15 months, we've traveled to every corner of the United States. I've now been in 57 states? I think one left to go."

King: I wonder what would have happened had Sarah Palin made this statement ??? Can you say 'media feeding frenzy' ? But with Obama, it's more like media blackout.
—
Obama: "People of Berlin – people of the world – this is our moment. This is our time."

King: Diagnosis – narcissist. Delusions of grandeur. Pretty creepy.
—
Obama: "The thing about hip-hop today is it's smart, it's insightful. The way they can communicate a complex message in a very short space is remarkable."

King: And all that misogynistic 'b*tches,' 'ho's,' 'back that a** up,' and "n-word' stuff is very insightful as well.
—
Obama: "There's not a liberal America and a conservative America – there's the United States of America."

King: Then why do you spend so much time excluding and trashing conservative America ?
—
Obama: "We can't drive our SUVs and eat as much as we want and keep our homes on 72 degrees at all times… and then just expect that other countries are going to say OK. That's not leadership. That's not going to happen."

King: Dictators R' Us. Other countries are supposed to tell us what we can drive, eat, and how we can heat our homes ? Nope. Don't think so. I'm not going to check with Belgium and Japan before I have a cheeseburger.
—
Obama: "We cannot continue to rely only on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives that we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded."

King: Yeah, and we can have them wear, oh, I don't know, how about Brownshirts!!! With all due respect, screw you, Mr. President. Dictators R' Us, Part Two.
—
Obama: "We need earmark reform, and when I'm President, I will go line by line to make sure that we are not spending money unwisely."

King: LOL. Most of your stimulus spending was nothing but earmarks. You've set a new record for earmarks, even though you called them something else. Dishonesty on steroids.
—
Obama: "I'm proud of the fact that I stood up early and unequivocally in opposition to Bush's foreign policy (and was the only U.S. Senate candidate in Illinois to do so). That opposition hasn't changed."

King: Then why are the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan/Pakistan still going on ?
—
Obama: "I reject that notion [that forcing people to purchase health insurance or fining them is a tax increase]. Telling people to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase."

King: Do the fines come out of people's pockets and flow to the government coffers ? Yes, they do. That's a tax increase, President Pinocchio, no matter what you want to call it in Spinville.
—
Obama: [debating Hillary] "Senator Clinton has a different approach. She believes that we have to force people who don’t have health insurance to buy it."

King: And so do you. At least Hillary was honest about it. How do you get that Pinocchio nose through the door, Mr. President ?
—
Obama: "Now, many of these plans will cost money, which is why I’ve laid out how I’ll pay for every dime – by closing corporate loopholes and tax havens that don’t help America grow."

King: What a comedian. This one didn't pass the laugh test to begin with, and Obama has abandoned the idea.
—
Obama: “And insurance companies will be required to cover, with no extra charge, routine checkups and preventive care … That makes sense, it saves money, and it saves lives.”

King: It makes sense and might save lives, but study after study indicates that preventive care will increase medical costs, not decrease them. It really only requires simple logic to make the determination. More care means more costs, and the overwhelming majority of preventive medicine DOESN'T uncover some dire illness. The overwhelming majority of people are healthy.
—
Obama: "And one more misunderstanding I want to clear up – under our plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions, and federal conscience laws will remain in place.”

King: I already dealt with this one in a recent post, but until the Stupak Amendment, it was obvious that federal funds, in the form of insurance subsidies, would have funded abortions under ObamaCare.
—
Obama: "They [I assume he means honest people] argue that these private companies can’t fairly compete with the government. And they’d be right if taxpayers were subsidizing this public insurance option. But they won’t be. I have insisted that like any private insurance company, the public insurance option would have to be self-sufficient and rely on the premiums it collects.”

King: Same phony argument by Obama as with abortion. Because the public option insurance would be subsidized by the taxpayers for low income persons, just as private insurance would be, Obama actually refuted his own point here. The taxpayers would be subsidizing the public option.
—
Obama: "“Reducing the waste and inefficiency in Medicare and Medicaid will pay for most of this [health care reform] plan.”

King: Now, that is some funny stuff. What's the name of that Michael McDonald song ???? Oh yeah, What A Fool Believes. Maybe Obama should get a side gig at the Laugh Factory. Nothing less than the entire history of our federal government tells us this can't possibly be true.
—
Obama: "I want to campaign the same way I govern, which is to respond directly and forcefully with the truth."

King: Ta da ! Hi-larious. You're killing me, Barry. Can you do any Jack Nicholson impressions ?
—
I can go on with these examples all day, but this post is running long, so I'll give President Pinocchio a break and stop embarassing him with the facts (for now).

One final quote, however.
—
Obama: "If the people cannot trust their government to do the job for which it exists – to protect them and to promote their common welfare – all else is lost."

King: Well then, it looks like all is lost, because I sure don't trust someone like Obama who lies to me all the time.
—

{ 20 comments }

Terrorists Coming To New York

by Da King on November 16, 2009

in Uncategorized, White House administration, courts, terrorism

“After eight years of delay, those allegedly responsible for the attacks of September the 11th will finally face justice. They will be brought to New York—New York — to answer for their alleged crimes in a courthouse just blocks from where the twin towers once stood.” – Attorney General Eric Holder.

Eric Holder is mistaken. Those terrorists coming to New York for trial were brought to justice years ago. They aren't on vacation down there in Guantanamo Bay. They are prisoners of a war Al Qaeda declared against the United States in 1996. Self-confessed 9/11 mastermind Khalid Shaikh Mohammed was captured in 2003. All five of the terrorists coming to New York for trial were already set to be tried before military commissions at Guantanamo Bay. What Holder has done is to grant foreign warriors the full rights of American citizenship by putting them into our civilian court system. Holder is seeking the death penalty, but KSM also faced the death penalty under the military commissions system.

What is to be gained from this ?

It isn't to console the families of 9/11 victims. Hundreds of them are already protesting this decision:

“Families are furious about this,” said Debra Burlingame, whose brother Chic Burlingame was the American Airlines pilot of one of the planes hijacked on Sept. 11. She said more than 300 family members have implored the administration not to move the trial to New York. “They know we don’t support this. We support military commissions but they are going to see a wave of fury, and I don’t think they’re prepared for it,” she said Friday after the decision became public.

Bringing the terrorists to New York and trying them only blocks away from the World Trade Center site will guarantee one thing – a media circus, perhaps unlike any we have yet seen. Won't it be fun to watch the terrorists exercise their new array of civil rights ? I know I can't wait for KSM's attorneys to say he should be freed because we didn't read him his Miranda rights. I also can't wait for his lawyers to ask for the evidence against him to be thrown out due to the enhanced interrogation techniques, aka torture. I can't wait for KSM to become the victim. I definitely look forward to KSM taking the stand to urge his followers to continue their jihad against the Great Satan, and having the media instantly spread his message across the globe. And what will happen when KSM's attorneys request access to classified intelligence materials as part of his defense ? There's a reason crimes and wars are treated differently, even if Eric Holder and Barack Obama don't know there is a difference.

Last week, Sen. Lindsay Graham (R-SC) tried to pass legislation that would have forced the administration to try 9/11 plotters in military courts. Democrats voted that legislation down by a vote of 54-45. We've spent years insuring that the military commissions pass Constitutional muster, and Obama has said he will try terrorism cases with military commissions, but then he brings the highest profile cases possible into federal court. Why ?

It's not that I think we can't try terrorists in federal court. We've done that before successfully lots of times, and in KSM's case we should be able to prevail, though how we'll get an impartial jury blocks away from the WTC site should be a circus all it's own. It's just that WE DIDN'T HAVE TO DO THIS. We could have avoided the circus.

UPDATE**

Here's President Obama from earlier this year:

"When this process is complete, there may be a number of people who cannot be prosecuted for past crimes, in some cases because evidence may be tainted, but who nonetheless pose a threat to the security of the United States. Examples of that threat include people who’ve received extensive explosives training at al Qaeda training camps, or commanded Taliban troops in battle, or expressed their allegiance to Osama bin Laden, or otherwise made it clear that they want to kill Americans. These are people who, in effect, remain at war with the United States. Let me repeat: I am not going to release individuals who endanger the American people. Al Qaeda terrorists and their affiliates are at war with the United States, and those that we capture — like other prisoners of war — must be prevented from attacking us again."

Obama admits KSM and company are prisoners of war who will not be released. Sooooo, why bring them into civilian court ? You know darn well that KSM will NEVER be released. That would be political suicide for Obama and the Democrats. This decision makes no sense to me.

{ 17 comments }

Is Obama Waking Up ?

by Da King on November 16, 2009

in Uncategorized

If what I read today is accurate, President Obama wants to freeze government spending and/or cut the spending of some departments by 5% in next year's budget.

For the very first time, I'll give Obama a 'Yes We Can !' without being satirical. It this happens, it's a baby step in the right direction. A very teeny, weeny baby step, but a step nonetheless.

Kinda. It might be only one more illusion from our President in an attempt to win the 2010 elections. Here's why….

As the Wall Street Journal noted a couple weeks ago, House Democrats are planning lots of spending INCREASES for 2010, and Democrats have been spending faster than drunken sailors ever dreamed:

The White House disclosed the other day that the fiscal 2009 budget deficit clocked in at $1.4 trillion, amid the usual promises to do something about it. Yet even as budget director Peter Orszag was speaking, House Democrats were moving on a dozen spending bills for fiscal 2010 that total 12.1% in more domestic discretionary increases.

Yes, 12.1%.

Remember, inflation is running close to zero, or 0.8%. The good news, if we can call it that, is that Senate Democrats only want to increase nondefense appropriations by 8% for 2010. Because these funding increases become part of the permanent baseline for future appropriations, the 2010 House budget bills would permanently raise annual outlays for discretionary programs by about $75 billion a year from now until, well, forever.

These spending hikes do not include the so-called mandatory spending programs like Medicare and Medicaid, which exploded by 9.8% and 24.7%, respectively, in the just-ended 2009 fiscal year. All of this largesse is also on top of the stimulus funding that agencies received in 2009. The budget for the Environmental Protection Agency rose 126%, the Department of Education budget 209% and energy programs 146%.

House Republicans on the Budget Committee added up the 2009 appropriations, the stimulus funding and 2010 budgets and found that federal agencies will, on average, receive a 57% increase in appropriated funds from 2008-2010. By contrast, real family incomes fell by 3.6% last year. There's no recession in Washington.

More broadly, the White House and the 111th Congress have already enacted or proposed $3.4 trillion of new spending through 2019 for things like the health-care plan, cap and tax, and the children's health bill passed earlier this year. Very little of this has been financed with offsetting spending cuts elsewhere in the budget.

Throughout the era of Republican rule in Washington, we scored GOP lawmakers for their overspending and earmarks—and so did Nancy Pelosi and other Congressional Democrats. So how do their records compare? From 2001-2008 the average annual increase in appropriations bills came in at 6.4%—or about double the rate of inflation. In this Congress spending is now growing six times faster than inflation.

So, even if Obama does reign in federal spending for one year, the net effect is still massive increases in the size of government. Still, I'm so disgusted by both major parties in Washington D.C. that anything at all resembling fiscal responsibility sounds like manna from heaven to me. I know I'm being manipulated by the President, but I'll take it anyway. At least it's better than him increasing spending even more in 2010.

Also, this means that the tragic, country-killing deficit/debt situation is on Obama's radar screen for 2010, and hopefully beyond. Maybe our rookie left-wing community organizer Prez is beginning to learn something about economics. I certainly hope so. I pray he does. I pray he realizes those Tea Party protesters are NOT a bunch of nuts. Those Tea Party protesters are the ones who would save this country from certain economic doom. They are the ones shouting the loudest that this country is way off-track, and has been for some time. Yes, there are a few birthers in that crowd, like there are a few nuts in any crowd, but the message is one of fiscal responsibility. The real nuts are the people who don't see there is an enormous problem. You can recognize the real nuts easily, because they are the ones calling the Tea Partiers names.

Score one for Obama if he accomplishes this.

{ 6 comments }

Let's Pay Down The Debt For Christmas

by Da King on November 13, 2009

in Uncategorized, economics, liberalism

Calling all big government advocates !!! It's time to do your patriotic duty for your country. As VP Joe Biden would say, "step up and be part of the deal."

As the Christmas season approaches, what better present could all you compassionate statists, leftists, socialists, communists, marxists, maoists, progressives, and liberals give us than to pay down the massive federal debt that all this out-of-control government spending has rained down upon our heads ? Show those mean old conservative grinches that you big government types are standup people who have the courage of your convictions. Send a big fat check to Uncle Sam to brighten the holidays for all us recession stressed Americans. We know you are the good people (because you keep telling us you are), so I'm going to tell you where to send your money. No need to thank me. Remember to dig deep, and give until it hurts. Your country needs you. The poor and oppressed need you, now more than ever.

Reuters has helpfully written an article on this subject. Here is the essential info:

The U.S. Treasury Department accepts gifts, payable to the Bureau of the Public Debt. Just mail them to the attention of Department G, Post Office Box 2188, Parkersburg, West Virginia, 26106-2188. Make a note in the memo section that it is a gift to reduce the debt held by the public.

The info is also contained on the U.S. Treasury website here.

I'll even help you big government lovers calculate the amount you should send in. According to the U.S. debt clock, the federal debt is just short of $12 trillion. Now I have to figure out how many liberals we have. Let's see…..we have about 250 million adults over the age of 18 living in the United States, and about 20% of the people refer to themselves as liberals according to polling……….soooo, that means there are around 50 million caring liberals in our broke country.

Dividing $12 trillion by 50 million liberals comes to…………

If you all would send in a check for $240,000, then voila!, our debt problem is solved.

Man, this is gonna be great !!! You liberals just paid for health care reform and lots more, because by paying off the federal debt, you saved America from paying over $330 billion a year in interest on that debt. We can use that savings to pay for health care reform, AND have lots left over to institute massive tax cuts, thereby revving up the economy !!! God bless you, every one !!! The recession will be over and jobs will be created !!! It'll be morning in America again !!!

Of course, there's always the possibility that you will think only of yourselves instead of helping others, and not send in any money, but no way do I think you good liberal people would be that selfish. I have complete confidence in you. I'm so excited.

Oh, wait a sec. There is one other thing. Even if you pay off the debt, we'll still have that $106 trillion in unfunded entitlement liabilities hanging over our heads. Rats. Still, I know how you good liberals love your entitlements. You'll certainly want to pay for those, so allow me to recalculate the amount of money you need to send in….$106 trillion plus $12 trillion equals $118 trillion. If I divide that by the 50 million liberals in America……….

You all need to send in a check for $2,360,000. Then we'll be good.

I offer my heartfelt thanks on behalf of all Americans. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you all.

{ 42 comments }

Democrats Divided Over Abortion

by Da King on November 11, 2009

in Democrats, Uncategorized, White House administration, abortion, health care

"Under our [health care reform] plan, no federal dollars will be used to fund abortions." – President Obama, addressing a joint session of Congress on September 9, 2009. (link)

Obama spent most of this year repeating the above words, and he characterized anybody who said otherwise, namely Republicans, as divisive peddlers of "outrageous myths."

But, in what has become an all too familiar game of misdirection, the peddler of myths was Obama himself. The Stupak Amendment proved the dishonesty of Obama's previous words. Prior to that amendment to the House health care bill, health care subsidies (federal funds) would have been used to fund private health care plans that cover abortions. With the adoption of the Stupak Amendment, no federal funds would be used to fund abortions in any health care plan. The Stupak Amendment was adopted because that was the only way the Democrats could pass the health care bill in the House of Representatives. Without it, they were 10 votes short.

Once abortions were REALLY not covered under ObamaCare (as opposed to Obama and other Democrats only pretending they weren't covered), the debate moved to the Senate, and a firestorm erupted in the Democratic party between the pro-choice liberal wing and the pro-life moderate/conservative wing. The pro-choicers argue that the Stupak Amendment is a sea change on abortion rights, restricting federal funds that were available under the previous Hyde Amendment. And the pro-choicers seem to be right. It is a sea change. The Hyde Amendment forbids use of federal taxpayer dollars to fund Medicaid abortions except in cases of rape, incest or threat to the mother’s life, but it also allows states to use their own Medicaid money (90% of which comes from federal funds) to fund other abortions, which about 17 states currently do. The Stupak Amendment negates that federal funding, as I understand it. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

The Dems find themselves between a rock and a hard place. If the pro-life wing prevails, about 40 Democrats say they won't support the health care plan. If the pro-choice wing prevails, they lose support from the pro-lifers. In either case, the Democratic filibuster-proof majority evaporates, and with almost all Republicans against ObamaCare, the current health care reform bills could die over the abortion issue split.

In light of this dilemma, Obama seems to support the pro-choice position, even though he's making split-the-baby (no unfortunate pun intended) comments on the issue. Here's Obama saying, um, something, to ABC's Jake Tapper today:

You know, I laid out a very simple principle, which is this is a health care bill, not an abortion bill. And we're not looking to change what is the principle that has been in place for a very long time, which is federal dollars are not used to subsidize abortions.

And I want to make sure that the provision that emerges meets that test — that we are not in some way sneaking in funding for abortions, but, on the other hand, that we're not restricting women's insurance choices, because one of the pledges I made in that same speech was to say that if you're happy and satisfied with the insurance that you have, that it's not going to change.

There. Hope that clears things up. According to Obama, we're not going to have federal funding for abortions. Except when we do. I think. Or not.

{ 22 comments }

More On The Fort Hood Jihadist

by Da King on November 10, 2009

in Uncategorized, terrorism

I use the word "jihadist" in this post, seeing as how our liberal friends objected so much to the accurate use of the word "terrorist" in my last post about the Fort Hood ~~terrorist~~ jihadist. I know how delicate are the sensibilities of our liberal friends. They are easily offended by words, unless the subject is conservatives, of course. Then, any and all pejorative language is highly recommended.

But….the Fort Hood ~~terrorist~~ jihadist is a Muslim, not a conservative, so maybe the word "jihadist" is too harsh for liberal sensibilities as well. I apologize for using the term. To avoid any possibility of liberals experiencing feelings of victimization and sadness, which sends them into desperate searches for moral equivalency and results in them defending mass murderers, I will also refrain from using the word "jihadist." Instead, I will refer to the Fort Hood ~~terrorist jihadist~~ mass murderer as "cuddly bunny."

According to ABC News, the FBI knew Nidal M. Hasan, the Fort Hood ~~terrorist jihadist~~ cuddly bunny had been trying to contact Al Qaeda several months ago:

U.S. intelligence agencies were aware months ago that Army Major Nidal Hasan was attempting to make contact with people associated with al Qaeda, two American officials briefed on classified material in the case told ABC News.
It is not known whether the intelligence agencies informed the Army that one of its officers was seeking to connect with suspected al Qaeda figures, the officials said.

I assume it's not standard operating procedure for a U.S. Army Major, a psychiatrist, to be trying to contact Al Qaeda, even if he is merely a cuddly bunny. ABC could be referring only to the 10 to 20 e-mails cuddly bunny sent to the radical imam Anwar Al-Awlaki, which the FBI said was consistent with cuddly bunny's research project (huh ??), but ABC said cuddly bunny was trying to contact "people" in Al Qaeda, as in, more than one. The FBI said it never delved into cuddly bunny's communiques with Al-Awlaki because there was no indication that cuddly bunny was planning any violence. I guess soldiers contacting Al Qaeda associates is hunky-dory with the FBI, as long as you don't say "I plan to kill a whole bunch of Americans" in your e-mail message. Oy vey.

On the morning of his mass murder, Hasan the ~~terrorist jihadist~~ cuddly bunny handed his neighbor a copy of the Koran and told her, "I’m going to do good work for God.” Note that ~~terrorists jihadists~~ cuddly bunnies think that killing infidels IS doing good work for God.

The aforementioned radical imam Al-Awlaki was quite impressed with the way cuddly bunny did God's work at Fort Hood. Here's Al-Awlaki's complete statement about cuddly bunny's Fort Hood "heroics":

"Nidal Hassan is a hero. He is a man of conscience who could not bear living the contradiction of being a Muslim and serving in an army that is fighting against his own people. This is a contradiction that many Muslims brush aside and just pretend that it doesn't exist. Any decent Muslim cannot live, understanding properly his duties towards his Creator and his fellow Muslims, and yet serve as a US soldier. The US is leading the war against terrorism which in reality is a war against Islam. Its army is directly invading two Muslim countries and indirectly occupying the rest through its stooges.
Nidal opened fire on soldiers who were on their way to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan. How can there be any dispute about the virtue of what he has done? In fact the only way a Muslim could Islamically justify serving as a soldier in the US army is if his intention is to follow the footsteps of men like Nidal.

The heroic act of brother Nidal also shows the dilemma of the Muslim American community. Increasingly they are being cornered into taking stances that would either make them betray Islam or betray their nation. Many amongst them are choosing the former. The Muslim organizations in America came out in a pitiful chorus condemning Nidal's operation.

The fact that fighting against the US army is an Islamic duty today cannot be disputed. No scholar with a grain of Islamic knowledge can defy the clear cut proofs that Muslims today have the right -rather the duty- to fight against American tyranny. Nidal has killed soldiers who were about to be deployed to Iraq and Afghanistan in order to kill Muslims. The American Muslims who condemned his actions have committed treason against the Muslim Ummah and have fallen into hypocrisy.

Allah(swt) says: Give tidings to the hypocrites that there is for them a painful punishment – Those who take disbelievers as allies instead of the believers. Do they seek with them honor [through power]? But indeed, honor belongs to Allah entirely. (al-Nisa 136-137) [Koran 4:136-137]

The inconsistency of being a Muslim today and living in America and the West in general reveals the wisdom behind the opinions that call for migration from the West. It is becoming more and more difficult to hold on to Islam in an environment that is becoming more hostile towards Muslims.

May Allah grant our brother Nidal patience, perseverance and steadfastness and we ask Allah to accept from him his great heroic act. Amen"

Al-Awlaki is someone cuddly bunny greatly admired. A colleague said cuddly bunny's "eyes lit up" when he talked about Al-Awlaki.

Not only did the military and FBI fail to connect the dots here, but judging from the comments to my last post, liberals don't even want to admit there are any dots to connect (unlike the runup to 9/11). Even President Obama said we shouldn't leap to any conclusions (unlike the Henry Louis Gates case, where Obama leapt to conclusions).

Sorry libs, but cuddly bunny is a jihadist terrorist, much as it might pain you to hear it. Allah Akhbar.

Now cuddly bunny is lawyered up, and is apparently speaking. I'm sure cuddly bunny expected to die gloriously at Fort Hood, and is probably disappointed that he hasn't gotten to his 72 virgins yet. Maybe that was the way cuddly bunny chose to get the wife he couldn't find here on earth, I don't know. I only wonder if cuddly bunny will have the courage of his jihadist convictions, or if he will punk out and claim temporary insanity, as his legal eagle is probably advising him to do.

As for my opinion………..can we still use firing squads ?

{ 22 comments }

If It Looks Like Islamic Terrorism…

by Da King on November 8, 2009

in Uncategorized, terrorism

Then it probably is Islamic terrorism.

Here's the evidence.

1) The American-born fundamentalist Muslim, Major Nidal Hasan, shouted "Allahu Akhbar" (God is great) as he opened fire on soldiers at Fort Hood, Texas, killing 13 and wounding 38. This is corroborated by several witnesses.

2) Hasan allegedly made internet postings sympathetic to Muslim suicide bombers, even calling such bombers herioic. These postings came to the attention of federal authorities six months ago, but were not pursued.

3) Hasan considered the war on terror to be a war against Islam, and considered himself to be a Muslim first and an American second.

4) Hasan gave a presentation on the Koran where he said the Koran commands infidels to be decapitated, burned, etc.

5) According to the London Telegraph, Hasan attended a mosque in Virginia in 2001 that was led by the radical imam Anwar Al-Awlaki. The mosque was attended by two of the 9/11 hijackers during the same period. Charles Allen, a former under-secretary for intelligence at the Department of Homeland Security, described al-Awlaki, who now lives in Yemen, as an "al-Qaeda supporter, and former spiritual leader to three of the September 11 hijackers… who targets US Muslims with radical online lectures encouraging terrorist attacks from his new home in Yemen".

6) Hasan gave away copies of the Koran to neighbors prior to his murderous shooting spree.

Got the picture yet ?

Hasan told relatives that he was horrified at the thought of going to Afghanistan later this year, and he was trying to get discharged from the Army.

With so many signs that this was an Islamic terrorist attack, the Lame Stream Media initially called it Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder, even though Hasan had never been in combat (maybe they should have tried out Pre-Traumatic Stress Disorder as a brand new condition). Or, as Chris Matthews of MSNBC said, "we may never know if religion was a factor at Fort Hood." I assume MSNBC is still considered a news network, per the White House definition. The Lames shied away from the word "terrorist," for some reason. If only Hasan had a copy of Glenn Beck's book on his nightstand, then the Lames probably would have figured out this was a terrorist act.

Let me issue the standard caveats here. Lord knows I don't want to be politically incorrect. Just because Major Nidal Hasan killed a bunch of people due to his religious beliefs doesn't mean that all Muslims are terrorists. The vast majority of us know this already, but certain political leaners with short left legs get very uncomfortable if we don't point it out every time there's a terrorist attack. There are a billion Muslims in the world, so obviously, only an infinitesimal percentage of them are terrorists. We should never condone any reprisals against Muslim people in general due to the actions of a few. That would be bigotry. It would be like hating the entire Catholic church due to a few pedophile priests, or hating the entire Tea Party movement because one or two protesters carried signs comparing Obama to Hilter. Only irrational folks like the Reverend at the Blog Of Mass Destruction do things like that.

Here we preach tolerance.

We also don't have a problem with calling something what it is, and what happened at Fort Hood was an act of religious-based terrorism. The biggest question we have to answer is why the military missed so many red flags with Nidal M. Hasan, especially after 9/11, when we started looking specifically for those exact red flags.

{ 50 comments }

Bigger And Better Boondoggles

by Da King on November 6, 2009

in Democrats, Uncategorized, White House administration, health care

Once upon a time, when I was nineteen years old, I read J.R. Tolkien's 1100-page Lord Of The Rings trilogy in about a week. I only accomplished that because I was in the hospital in traction at the time, and didn't have anything else to do. It was either hobbits or soap operas. I was thankful for the hobbits.

But what if, instead of Lord Of The Rings, I had undertaken to read the 1990-page House health care reform bill, filled with the wonders of it's arcane legalese ? Would I have been able to read and comprehend all the ramifications of that in one short week ? Very doubtful, but that's what Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi expects her congressional representatives to do. Pelosi wants a vote on the health care reform bill on saturday, eight days after it was written. Could it be that Pelosi and company want a quick vote because they desire to pass the bill before people really figure out what's in it ? That has been the modus operandi of the liberal Democrat wing all year regarding health care reform. Remember that President Obama wanted a bill passed by july, but the bluedog Democrats and Republicans stopped that mistake from happening. Ironically, the longer congressional Democrats work on health care reform bills, the bigger and more convoluted they get (it ain't easy to cater to so many special interests at once). The House health care bill is now over a trillion dollars, above Obama's low, low bargain cost ceiling of $900 billion, not that it matters. We shouldn't believe anything Obama says about health care anyway. You know he'll sign anything called health care reform that gets to his desk, no matter how bad it is, just so he can claim victory.

Hey, here's an idea. Let's have Nancy Pelosi give a couple hour long press conference about the House health care reform bill on saturday, so Americans can find out exactly what the Democrats are trying to pass (assuming Nancy even knows) ? 'We The People' and all that. That would be quite helpful, and very transparent of the Dems, seeing as how they never quite got around to having the health care negotiations on CSPAN, as candidate Obama falsely promised. Obama also falsely claimed he wouldn't force people to buy health care insurance, but that's pretty much the centerpiece of ObamaCare now. Our dishonest prez has even taken to telling such outrageous and obvious lies about health care reform that it takes an entire liberal media not to notice them. Here's one from yesterday, per the Washington Times:

The president said that AARP, the nation's largest seniors organization, has signed on to the House bill because it knows that the legislation will "strengthen Medicare, not jeopardize it. They know it will protect the benefits our seniors receive, not cut them," Mr. Obama said.

Um, the House health care bill cuts $472.8 billion from Medicare, Mr. President. That's a real whopper you just told. What's next ? Will you tell us that round thing in the sky at night isn't the moon, it's actually the Obama logo ? I'm sure only the "naysayers" who are responsible for "the failed policies of the past" would disagree with you, like those Fox "non" News people with their "viewpoints." (Side question – have you ever met a person who didn't have a viewpoint, outside of the comatose ?)

In the President's defense, he probably hasn't read the House health care bill either, so maybe he doesn't know about the cuts, or maybe he puts his hands over his ears and yells "na, na, na, na" when his staff members try to inform him. Obama leaves the petty details to others. He's just there for the big picture stuff. He's busy fundamentally transforming America (into a shell of it's former self). Obama makes the grand proclamations, like "reform health care," or "close Guantanamo Bay," or "limit carbon emissions." He can't be bothered to figure out how to do any of those things. After all, Obama has never run a country, state, county, city, or township before. He's never run a business, never managed employees. He doesn't have any expertise in health care, military, economic, or environmental matters. He never even accomplished much of anything in hist short Senate career, or even during his years in the Illinois state legislature. He was one of those guys who votes "present," so as not to be pinned down to a position. Obama is the entry-level president who charmed the media in 2008 with the sound of his voice, his sappy inspirational rhetoric, and his historic nature. That, and the fact he is a liberal Democrat. The media LOVES that, even though America really doesn't. That's why Obama hid behind all that tripe about post-partisanship. Obama is as far from post-partisan as can be. He's hyper-partisan. He can barely speak without denigrating his opposition and blaming everything on them. He's also utterly without shame, and, as I've outlined quite a bit on this blog, will tell any lie at any time, with absolute conviction. On the rare occasions when a journalist actually gets to ask him about one of his falsehoods (like Stephanopolous did when asking if the health care mandate was a tax), Obama flashes that winning smile and then acts like the journalist just crapped in his own pants by asking such a silly question, one that only the "tired opposition" or "entrenched special interests" would ask. Obama is dishonest and then acts like we're idiots for pointing out that he's being dishonest. Sorry, Mr. O, but you ain't that slick, even if you and your adoring media have fooled many into believing you are.

Uh, what was I talking about ? Oh yeah, health care reform. Sorry I roamed a bit off topic there. It's just that I'm getting tired of all the deceptions coming from the White House, as the Democrats try to pass bigger and better boondoggles off on the rest of us.

{ 12 comments }

Rumors Of GOP Death Greatly Exaggerated

by Da King on November 4, 2009

in Democrats, GOP, Uncategorized, voting

When the Republican party scored big gubernatorial wins in New Jersey and Virginia yesterday, emerging victorious in those two blue states that voted for Obama only one short year ago, I couldn't help but think of all the pundits and talking heads who giddily predicted years and years of GOP'ers scrounging for food in the political wilderness after Obama's historic 2008 victory and the 2006 Democratic takeover of Congress. 'The political landscape has shifted forever !' proclaimed these sages of punditry (who almost all happen to be Democrats). 'The Reagan Revolution is over ! The GOP is marginalized !,' intoned these bellwethers of bombastic buffoonery (who almost all happen to be Democrats).

As it turns out, forever isn't a very long time when it comes to politics. The Republicans won almost everything yesterday. They even won the one race they lost. I'll get back to that in a minute.

Despite being outspent by a margin of 3-to-1, and despite President Obama bringing his star power to bear by campaigning for his opponent, Republican challenger Chris Christie defeated the Democratic incumbent governor of New Jersey, the billionaire Jon Corzine. New Jersey has been a solid blue state for years, so this was a major 'get' for the GOP. In Virginia, a traditional swing state, the Republicans won the governorship by a landslide. They also won the Lieutenant Governor and Attorney General races by landslides. In New York city, Republican Michael Bloomberg (or is he an Independent now ?) won a third term. My liberal television station du jour (I chose to watch CNN attempt to explain the voting results away), kept saying that the wealthy Bloomberg "bought the vote." Notably, I never heard CNN say a word about the wealthy Democrat Corzine attempting to buy the vote in New Jersey, which is one reason I'm referring to them as my liberal television station du jour.

CNN came up with a variety of rationalizations in an attempt to explain away yesterday's GOP wins. Here are the top few:

1) The Democrats weren't energized like they were in 2008. They have a post-Obama hangover.
2) The opposition party always wins the year after a presidential election.
3) These are only local races with no national significance, and no significance in 2010.
4) Crazed wingnuts like Rush Limbaugh, Glenn Beck, and the Tea Partiers have whipped the conservatives up into conniptions, causing them to turn out at the voting booth (and may I add, we're lucky nobody was hurt).

What CNN seems unable to grasp are the actual facts. The economy stinks, Obama is running the deficit through the roof, Americans are against ObamaCare, Americans don't want a bunch of new taxes during a recession, Americans don't want their electricity bills to go up, Americans are alarmed at all the government expansion and overreach, joblessness is around 17%, etc, etc.

Now let me get back to the one significant bright spot for the Democrats in yesterday's elections, if you can call it a bright spot (CNN certainly tried to make the claim). In New York state's 23rd congressional district, Democrat Bill Owens defeated Conservative party candidate Doug Hoffman and Republican party candidate Dede Scozzafava in what can only be termed a comedy of errors by the Republican keystone cops in New York. The GOP really had to bollux things up to lose this race. The 23rd district had been controlled by Republicans for a century. All the GOP had to do was nominate an actual Republican and this race was theirs, but they couldn't even manage that much. Instead, they stuck Scozzafava on the ballot, a Democrat in Republican clothing. Predictably, most Republicans didn't like her, though Newt Gingrich proved he cares more about party power than principle by backing her. Shame on Newt. Scozzafava faltered badly in the polls and unknown third party candidate Hoffman surged into the lead as several prominent Republicans supported him. The Republicans still would have won the race with Hoffman, but then Scozzafava dropped out and stabbed the stumblebum GOP in the back by supporting the Democrat Owens. With Scozzafava dropping out so late in the race, her name still appeared on the ballot, and enough party line Republicans voted for her to hand the race to the Democrat. Just brilliant, GOP. Just brilliant. Owens wins without a majority of the vote, even though the majority of the voters were against him. I only hope the Republican party bosses in New York stay away from sharp objects, or they might hurt themselves.

In a mind-numbing bit of illogical gymnastics, CNN claimed the Owens win illustrated that the GOP can't win with far right candidates like Hoffman. I kid you not. Here's Hoffman, who has never run for political office in his life, who is not anywhere close to being a polished politician (which is a plus in my book), running as a third party candidate against a career Democrat, with a Republican candidate scraping off critical votes and endorsing his opponent, and Hoffman still almost pulls it off, losing by only 3-4 points. And CNN decides Hoffman is one of the wingnut fringe. Such "analysis" makes CNN the wingnut fringe, if you ask me. Larry King couldn't say Hoffman's name without referring to him as "far right" or "wingnut," due to Hoffman's affinity for the Tea Party movement. Hoffman, btw, stands for fiscal responsiblity, reducing the debt, low taxes, etc. You know, all those "wingnutty" ideas that all sane people favor.

I'm just glad I didn't watch MSNBC. Has that station accused any Republicans of stealing elections yet ? If not, give them time. I'm sure they will, as soon as Keith Olbermann finds out there was a Republican working for the Board of Elections somewhere in New Jersey.

Tagged as: elections

{ 26 comments }

A Taxing Health Care Plan

by Da King on November 2, 2009

in Democrats, Uncategorized, White House administration, health care, taxes

There's an old political truism that says you don't raise taxes during a recession. The reason is, raising taxes during a recession tends to make the recession worse. They used to call that – economics.

But that was before the Age Of Obama and Pelosi, where economic rules no longer apply. Obama and Pelosi just love to raise them some taxes, recession or not. It's full speed ahead and damn the torpedoes with those two. The enormous 1990-page House health care bill is no exception. Following are the taxes contained in that bill, courtesy of Americans For Tax Reform:

Employer Mandate Excise Tax (Page 275): If an employer does not pay 72.5 percent of a single employee’s health premium (65 percent of a family employee), the employer must pay an excise tax equal to 8 percent of average wages. Small employers (measured by payroll size) have smaller payroll tax rates of 0 percent (<$500,000), 2 percent ($500,000-$585,000), 4 percent ($585,000-$670,000), and 6 percent ($670,000-$750,000).

Individual Mandate Surtax (Page 296): If an individual fails to obtain qualifying coverage, he must pay an income surtax equal to the lesser of 2.5 percent of modified adjusted gross income (MAGI) or the average premium. MAGI adds back in the foreign earned income exclusion and municipal bond interest.

Medicine Cabinet Tax (Page 324): Non-prescription medications would no longer be able to be purchased from health savings accounts (HSAs), flexible spending accounts (FSAs), or health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs). Insulin excepted.

Cap on FSAs (Page 325): FSAs [Flexible Spending Accounts] would face an annual cap of $2500 (currently uncapped).

Increased Additional Tax on Non-Qualified HSA [Health Savings Accounts] Distributions (Page 326): Non-qualified distributions from HSAs would face an additional tax of 20 percent (current law is 10 percent). This disadvantages HSAs relative to other tax-free accounts (e.g. IRAs, 401(k)s, 529 plans, etc.)

Denial of Tax Deduction for Employer Health Plans Coordinating with Medicare Part D (Page 327): This would further erode private sector participation in delivery of Medicare services.

Surtax on Individuals and Small Businesses (Page 336): Imposes an income surtax of 5.4 percent on MAGI over $500,000 ($1 million married filing jointly). MAGI adds back in the itemized deduction for margin loan interest. This would raise the top marginal tax rate in 2011 from 39.6 percent under current law to 45 percent—a new effective top rate.

Excise Tax on Medical Devices (Page 339): Imposes a new excise tax on medical device manufacturers equal to 2.5 percent of the wholesale price. It excludes retail sales and unspecified medical devices sold to the general public.

Corporate 1099-MISC Information Reporting (Page 344): Requires that 1099-MISC forms be issued to corporations as well as persons for trade or business payments. Current law limits to just persons for small business compliance complexity reasons. Also expands reporting to exchanges of property.

Delay in Worldwide Allocation of Interest (Page 345): Delays for nine years the worldwide allocation of interest, a corporate tax relief provision from the American Jobs Creation Act

Limitation on Tax Treaty Benefits for Certain Payments (Page 346): Increases taxes on U.S. employers with overseas operations looking to avoid double taxation of earnings.

Codification of the “Economic Substance Doctrine” (Page 349): Empowers the IRS to disallow a perfectly legal tax deduction or other tax relief merely because the IRS deems that the motive of the taxpayer was not primarily business-related.

Application of “More Likely Than Not” Rule (Page 357): Publicly-traded partnerships and corporations with annual gross receipts in excess of $100 million have raised standards on penalties. If there is a tax underpayment by these taxpayers, they must be able to prove that the estimated tax paid would have more likely than not been sufficient to cover final tax liability.

That's thirteen new taxes in all, which are supposed to generate $540 billion in new revenue over 10 years to pay for health care reform (though it seems little is actually being reformed with this health care "reform." Mostly, we're just creating a big new welfare program combined with a government mandate for all to purchase health insurance). There is a public option in the House bill, but it is not one which ties reimbursement rates to Medicare rates. It allows for providers to negotiate reimbursement rates. The other interesting thing about ObamaCare is that the health care taxes begin immediately, but the benefits don't kick in for four years or so. That's how ObamaCare "doesn't add one dime to the federal deficit." Ten years of taxes pay for six years of benefits. You aren't supposed to notice that, just as you aren't supposed to notice that ObamaCare cuts over $400 billion from Medicare to pay for itself, something that has never been accomplished before in the history of Medicare. Historically, it's been the Democrats who said Republicans were trying to kill grandma by proposing much smaller Medicare cuts than ObamaCare proposes. Now it's the Democrats proposing the cuts, and the Republicans are the ones saying the Democrats are trying to kill grandma. Things have come full circle. Go figure.

Many of these new taxes will be either implemented against the middle class or passed down to them (non-insurance penalty, tax on medical devices, employer taxes, limits on FSA's and HSA's). This reminds me of something President Obama said on the campaign trail last year:

I can make a firm pledge, under my plan, no family making less than $250,000 a year will see any form of tax increase. Not your income tax, not your payroll tax, not your capital gains taxes, not any of your taxes.

Sure Barry, whatever you say. The One broke that pledge a couple weeks after being inaugurated by raising the tax on cigarettes, and now he wants to break it again with health care reform. Then he wants to break his pledge again with cap and trade, which would be a huge tax increase that filters down to every American household. Various other Democrats want to tax sodas, gasoline, fast foods, heating oil, cigarettes some more, expensive health care plans (Senate health care plan), and anything else they can dream up. Democrats are engaged in the game of 1,001 ways to raise your taxes without you knowing they've raised your taxes.

And all this during what Democrats themselves term as the worst recession since the Great Depression.

Gee, what could possibly go wrong ?

Hey, I know. We can just keep passing $800 billion stimulus packages every single year, basically forever. That will "create or save" lots of jobs. Then everything will be just fine.

Just kidding. That would be a recipe for destruction, as any fifth grader could figure out. The problem is, that seems to BE the actual economic plan of the Democrats, at least until those millions of green jobs kick in sometime in the next couple decades.

That Obama sure is a good public speaker though. There's that.

{ 15 comments }

← Previous Entries