The entire liberal media is telling you the FISA bill passed by the House Of Representatives on friday is the end of civil rights, the death of our Constitution, an example of Democrats caving to the lawless Bush administration, etc, etc. They try to drum this stuff into your head constantly, in the hope that you will forget what happened on 9/11, in the hope that you will forget WHY the Bush administration took the national security actions they took following that tragic attack, the worst ever on our homeland. They don't want you to ponder the REAL reasons for Bush's spying, because then it might look like Bush was only attempting to keep America safe from further attack, which is, after all, the job of the President. No, the liberal media wants you to believe Bush just woke up one day and illogically decided it was time to be a dictator and trample on the citizenry, for no reason really, just because Bush is an evil lawless tyrant and that's what evil lawless tyrants do. The liberal media wants you to know evil has a name, and that name is Bush. Also, the liberal media wants you to know that Bush=McCain=Republicans, just so there won't be any mistake. This IS an election year, after all.

But I assume most of you can see through the liberal media's shallow attempts at deception. Most people have the capacity for rational thought. This post is for you. I'll attempt to tell you what the new FISA update is really about.

In spite of the overblown protestations of the liberal media, many Democrats, most terrorist appeasers, and all outright Al Qaeda members, the new FISA bill is not the death of civil rights. There will be oversight of domestic spying with this new bill. It establishes a measure of balance between monitoring suspected terrorists and privacy concerns. It also attempts to establish limits on the president's executive powers. It spells out areas of domestic and international spying that needed to be spelled out.

The biggest sticking point to passage of the bill had been the provision to shield the telecommunications companies from lawsuits following the telcoms post-9/11 cooperation with the government in tracking terrorists. 40 such lawsuits were in the wings. None of the 40 persons or groups that wanted to sue the telecoms had any idea if their phones were monitored or if their rights were infringed. They just wanted to sue on principle. Democrats were hesitant to bargain away those lawsuits. The new FISA bill will shield the telcoms from lawsuits if the telcoms receive certification from the attorney general that the president ordered them to perform wiretaps to detect or prevent a terrorist attack. I like this provision, because it puts the responsibility for wiretaps on the government where it belongs. It is very troublesome to put the responsibility for making decisions about terrorism on private corporations who are torn between helping their country and treading into questionable legal territory that could cost them millions or billions of dollars.

I have some personal experience in this area. Following 9/11, I was a computer programmer/analyst for a bank. The government requested anti-terrorist type information from the bank, which I was tasked with providing them. Some of the requests involved the tracking of certain financial transactions and some involved other information, such as the reporting of all account signers who didn't have Social Security numbers. If any of you think this is improper action by the government, I can also tell you that the government has been tracking your financial information for decades. If you think your banking transactions are private, think again. They aren't. Nowadays, there are even sophisticated methodologies to track any type of unusual financial activity, and even methodolgies to predict financial activity, but that is a discussion for another time.

The point is that I certainly wouldn't have wanted to face a lawsuit for attempting to help my government track terrorist activity a few months after 9/11. The new FISA bill addresses that problem.

Some other provisions in the new FISA bill, according to the linked article, are:

- It requires the inspectors general of the Justice Department, Pentagon and intelligence agencies to investigate the wiretapping program, with a report due in a year.

- The government can initiate a wiretap without court permission if "important intelligence" would otherwise be lost. It has a week to file the request for approval with the court, and the court has 30 days to act on it.

- It would allow the government to tap a foreigner's overseas calls without FISA court approval.

- Require FISA court permission to wiretap Americans who are overseas.

- Prohibit targeting a foreigner to secretly eavesdrop, without court approval, on an American's calls or e-mails.

- Require the government to protect American information or conversations that are collected when in communications with targeted foreigners.

- Allow the FISA court 30 days to review existing but expiring surveillance orders before renewing them.

- Allow eavesdropping in emergencies without court approval, provided the government files required papers within a week.

- Prohibits the president from superseding surveillance rules in the future.

Is the new FISA bill perfect ? No.

Did the old FISA and spying procedures need to be updated to reflect the modern technological world and the new type of threat the terrorists present ? Absolutely.

Now my advice for those who die, (taxman)
Declare the pennies on your eyes. (taxman)
'Cause I’m the taxman,
Yeah, I’m the taxman.

And you're working for no one but me.
- The Beatles

The next time you hear a Democratic politician complain about the Bush tax cuts, as Democrats tend to do in about every third or fourth sentence (at this point it's almost like liberal Tourette's Syndrome), think about this:

Accounts Receivable Tax, Building Permit Tax, Capital Gains Tax, CDL License Tax, Cigarette Tax, Corporate Income Tax, Dog License Tax, Federal Income Tax, Federal Unemployment Tax (FUTA), Fishing License Tax, Food License Tax, Fuel Permit Tax, Gasoline Tax, Hunting License Tax, Inheritance Tax, Inventory Tax, IRS Interest Charges (tax on top of tax), IRS Penalties (tax on top of tax), Local Income Tax, Liquor Tax, Luxury Tax, Marriage License Tax, Medicare Tax, Property Tax, Real Estate Tax, Service charge taxes, Social Security Tax, Road Usage Tax (Truckers), Sales Taxes, Recreational Vehicle Tax, School Tax, State Income Tax, State Unemployment Tax (SUTA), Telephone Federal Excise Tax, Telephone Federal Universal Service Fee Tax, Telephone Federal, State and Local Surcharge Tax, Telephone Minimum Usage Surcharge Tax, Telephone Recurring and Non-recurring Charges Tax, Telephone State and Local Tax, Telephone Usage Charge Tax, Utility Tax, Vehicle License Registration Tax, Vehicle Sales Tax, Watercraft Registration Tax, Well Permit Tax, Workers Compensation Tax…and many, many others

Then ask yourself if MORE taxes is really the right way to go. Combined government at all levels already takes over $5 trillion (that's a five followed by TWELVE ZEROES) out of our pockets each year(and some people wonder why the middle class is shrinking and we're going in debt. Hello).

As if all that isn't bad enough, the Democrats propose more tax increases at every turn. Examples since May, 2008 alone are - the Windfall Profits Tax on the oil companies (which was voted down by the Republicans. Thanks GOP), the Lieberman-Warner Climate Change Tax (which was voted down by the Republicans. Thanks GOP), and the huge subsidies in the Farm Bill (which the Republicans did NOT vote down. Bad GOP. Bush vetoed it, thanks Bush, but Congress will override his veto).

A president Barack Obama, in addition to ending the Bush tax cuts for the rich, lifting the Social Security tax cap, and doubling the capital gains tax, would also like us all to pay a Global Poverty Tax to the United Nations. Obama's huge new spending plans will require taxes to be raised through the roof, so don't be fooled by his misleading rhetoric about a middle class tax cut. The total tax burden trickles down to the middle class and the poor just as sure as the rain falls from the sky. It's the total tax burden that really matters, and Obama would jack it up by another trillion dollars or so. I'm sure you all can afford it, though. It's small change, really. Petty cash, at least to Democrats. Yes we can (take your money).

Or you can vote for John McCain, who promises to scrub every facet of government to reduce spending, who is a hawk against earmarks, and who wants to cut taxes by $300 billion. Your choice. McCain also wants to reduce the corporate income tax rate from 35% to 25% in order to stimulate business, create jobs, and lower prices. Barack Obama called that proposal "catering to the wealthiest americans", in a standard bit of Democratic class warfare rhetoric. What Mr. Obama doesn't understand is that it's the total tax burden that counts when it comes to jobs, wages, prices, and business stimulation. It's a fairly simple concept really: the more government takes away from business, the less money business has to grow, hire new people, or pay higher wages. The more government takes from business, the higher the cost of doing business becomes, and the more goods and services from business cost. In fact, the concept is SO simple that it takes a lot of liberal propaganda to get it all mixed up, as Obama has. Don't be fooled.

Congratulations to Barack Hussein Obama (D-IL) for capturing the 2008 Democratic presidential nomination. He deserves it, since he did get the second most votes among all the Democratic contenders, and also due to his vast governmental, economic, management, leadership, and military experience and knowledge [assuming "vast" means "imaginary"]. During last night's inspirational victory speech, Obama declared, "America, this is your moment". I don't know what that means exactly, but it sounds good, and I guess I should be happy that America's moment coincides with Barack Obama's moment. I'm nearly breathless with anticipation, knowing America will cease to be the third world, poverty ridden, mean-spirited, unfair hellhole we've all had to endure thus far in our country's history. Maybe, just maybe (dare I dream ?), we will all cease to be so bitter and divisive (assuming you buy into that false Obama construct), and we can spend our days dancing and singing in Barry's Magical Wonderland Of Unity And Fairness [assuming "unity" means "no dissent from liberal doctrine", and "fairness" means "the government decides who can keep their own money and who can't"].

Liberals have been telling me conservatism is dead, because people "expect more from their government". Somehow, those people never recognize that getting "more from their government" only means that the government must take more from them, so they're not really getting anything, except maybe a bureaucracy, a middle man. Those people also never recognize that handing over ever more power to a centralized government is a really, really bad long term plan, because once the government has absolute power over you, that makes you a SLAVE, subject to the government's whim, begging for scraps from the government table. Our founding fathers knew that over 200 years ago, but liberals have forgotten the lesson. They have forgotten the founding lesson of our country. They have forgotten the founding lesson of the founder of their own Democratic party, Thomas Jefferson, but they have the audacity of dopes and call themselves the intelligentsia. I don't get it. On second thought, maybe I do get it, since the word "intelligentsia" is of Russian origin. If conservatism is dead, so is the American spirit.

It's been said the best form of government would be a benevolent dictatorship, because a good dictator would have absolute power to do good, which would benefit the people. The problem is, what you consider good might not be what I consider good, or even worse, the dictator could turn out to be, gasp, bad. For all you Bush haters out there, remember, when you vote to give the federal government ever more power over your lives, you are ultimately voting to give the Bush types more power too, because you can't predict who our next leaders will be.

You see, in Barry's Magical Wonderland Of Unity And Fairness, I'm being a divisive fearmonger RIGHT NOW, merely because I have a different idea about what America should be. That's why Barry And Friends want to implement things like The Fairness Doctrine to stop all those nasty conservatives from saying all those divisive anti-liberal things on talk radio. That's why Barry And Friends want to remove the secret ballot from union voting, so they can intimidate workers and impose their pro-union will. The way Barry And Friends achieve unity is by stifling dissent whenever possible.

Here's a line from Obama's victory speech:

"What you won’t hear from this campaign or this party is the kind of politics that uses religion as a wedge, and patriotism as a bludgeon – that sees our opponents not as competitors to challenge, but enemies to demonize".

This is a classic Obama statement. He's actually demonizing Republicans at the very same time he's saying he won't demonize them. Hopey McChangerson at his best. It's that false Obama construct again, where the opposition's issues are divisive, the oppositions issues are fearmongering. Only Obama's issues are the important ones.

Bull. Tell me another tall tale. Barack, even the church you attended for 20 years demonizes people. The Left is all about demonizing people. I defy anyone to turn on C-SPAN and listen to Congress for even one hour and not hear the Republican party being demonized by the Democrats. One hour. Demonization is the Democrats game plan. It's their number one tactic. The Democrats play off our fears at EVERY turn. They'll try to get you to believe insanely false ideas, like 'Republicans want to impose a theocracy', or 'tax cuts are bad'. The Democrats spend all day pitting one group against the other - poor against rich, black against white, government against business, union against non-union, blue collar against white collar, secularism against religion, women against men, even people against polar bears. They promote the constant drumbeat of class and racial warfare and division, they endlessly play group and identity politics, and then they have the audacity of dopes to think YOU won't notice. Their pretense of unity is laughable. They don't want unity. THEY WANT POWER.

If unity was really the goal, Barack Obama would be a bipartisan politician. He pretends that he is, but that's an artifice, a mirage. His record reveals exactly the opposite. He's a down-the-line liberal on every single issue. Again, I defy anyone to show me differently. Talk is cheap. Actions are what count. If unity is really the goal (not that I'm saying it should be), then John McCain is the one who has the bipartisan history, not Barack Obama. It's not even a close call.

As I'm writing this, Obama's on television in the background. He's speaking to a Jewish lobbyist group, telling them exactly what they want to hear, as he so often does (Iran's a grave threat in this speech), even when it contradicts what he said previously (Iran is a tiny country and little threat). Obama just displayed the audacity of dopes by saying his Iran policy has been "willfully mischaracterized" by his opposition, when all that REALLY happened was, his opposition reacted to the actual words coming from Obama's mouth about Iran. If there is mischaracterization, Obama mischaracterized himself.

Now I hear Obama blaming Bush for the high price of oil. Bloody hell. The Dems are the ones who've insured that we're helpless and dependent on foreign oil with their decades long braindead restrictions on domestic oil producti…..

Oops, there I go being divisive again. Gosh, I'm such a fearmonger. Sorry.

Obama is love. I love Obama.

There's not much coming from the media about the war these days, is there ? How very curious. The reason is, the war is being won. I guess that's not news.

“Back from the front, Gen. David Petraeus called on Congress Thursday to begin considering a drawdown of U.S. troops after five years of war. Violence in Iraq has plunged to its lowest levels since 2004, and al-Qaida is a tattered shadow of its former self—key leaders dead, successors weak and recruiting down. ’My sense’ Petraeus said, ‘is I will be able to make a recommendation (in the autumn) for further reductions.’ This is no Saigon-style exit, but a coming victorious end of a long conflict. U.S. forces have pounded al-Qaida into irrelevance. Using highly disciplined Special Forces strikes, advanced intelligence and communications, and local allies in the right places, 155,000 U.S. troops have been crushing a vicious enemy motivated by no rational forces in a war with no precedent. They are winning against all odds, overcoming not just terrorists, but other obstacles such as a lumbering Pentagon bureaucracy and weak-kneed Western intelligentsia whose media toadies trump every military error and harp on every isolated bad deed. Now proven wrong, these same critics retaliate by ignoring what is a very big story. Worldwide terror attacks have fallen off 40% since 2001, according to a study by Canada’s Human Security Report Project, and support for al-Qaida in the Arab world has collapsed. The study found terror attacks had been over-counted because Iraq War atrocities distorted the figures. Security gains elsewhere included even sub-Saharan Africa, where the improvement was called ‘extraordinary.’ Just as the conflict in Iraq is coming to a close, two related terror wars—in Spain and Colombia—are also seeing signs of victory… From the deserts of Iraq to the villages of Spain to the jungles of Colombia, these victories against terrorist groups are all linked. They are the result of using proven tactics, holding together resolutely, cooperating with other nations to share and deliver intelligence, and forming united fronts. When this happens, terrorists cannot flourish. Recent successes show that these wars are winnable.” —Investor’s Business Daily

This is not the Iraq war of 2006, the one that was spinning out of control, the one that prompted Harry Reid and Barack Obama to declare the war lost. We are winning this war, which liberal Democrats said could not be done. They said there was no military solution, but people like General Petraeus proposed a military solution known as the Surge (with John McCain's backing, speaking of judgement), and it has worked. Liberals like Barack Obama said it couldn't ever work (speaking of judgement). The Iraqi military is taking the lead in many areas now, and Iraqis are turning against the extremists.

Now I propose that liberals get up to speed, because the dynamic under which they are operating is obsolete. Liberals have tried to end the war all along, but what does it say about them if they try to end it when the Iraqi government is close to standing on their own, when Al Qaeda is all but eliminated, and when political reconciliation is moving forward ? Yet still, every day on the stump, Obama tells his supporters he'll end the war, and they applaud. I propose that Obama do something new, something patriotic, and tell his supporters the truth, and that as president he will help to WIN THE WAR, a war that is already being won. As Scott McClellan said in his book, it was Bush's goal to remake the Middle East. I always thought that was Bush's goal as well. It was one heck of an ambitious goal, and I didn't think it could be done, which is why I didn't think the Iraq war was a very hot idea. I still think that goal is quite an overreach, but I would never, ever abandon the Iraqis after the fact, after Saddam was gone and the gap hadn't been filled. After the Iraq invasion, it was simply unthinkable and immoral to abandon that country to the extremists. I can think of nothing more irresponsible than that, yet that was the liberal policy all along. It's time for that policy to shift from one of defeat to one of success. If Obama does become president, by the time he's sworn into office, it may be that the only thing he has to do regarding Iraq is to not screw it up, to not reverse all the progress that has been made, to not pull the rug out, to not make the price we paid in blood worth nothing. That is the least we should expect from any American president.

I've been ignoring Barack Obama's growing list of mistakes and blunders, but they have been coming so fast and furious that I have to comment (okay, I don't HAVE to. I WANT to). I've already reported some of them, such as Obama referring to Iran as a tiny country that is little threat to the U.S., only to claim a few days later that Iran is a grave threat, so I don't have to repeat that one. Oops, too late.

Here goes.

===
Barry O's latest blunder was during his Memorial Day speech, when he confused Memorial Day, when we honor our fallen soldiers, with Veterans Day, when we honor our living veterans. Or, Barry sees dead people. You decide:

"On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes — and I see many of them in the audience here today — our sense of patriotism is particularly strong." - Barack Obama, May 26, 2008

O's campaign spokesman Bill Burton reinforced the error in a retort to John McCain, when Burton said “Memorial Day is a day to honor our nation’s veterans, not a day for political posturing.” Ironically, Obama took several swipes at George W. Bush ON MEMORIAL DAY, which evidently were somehow NOT "political posturing." I guess I just don't understand the rules.
===
Last saturday, Obama, on a campaign stop in SUNRISE, Florida, said, ""How's it going, SUNSHINE? Thank you. Thank you. Thank you. Thank you everybody. It's good to be in SUNSHINE!"

Maybe there weren't any clouds that day.

This gaffe is reminiscent of Obama's greeting to Sioux Falls, S.D., where he declared, "Thank you, Sioux City!"
===
Last thursday, Obama told the Orlando Sentinel that he would meet with Venezuelan president Hugo Chavez and “one of the obvious high priorities in my talks with President Hugo Chavez would be the FERMENTATION of anti-American sentiment in Latin America, his support of FARC in Colombia and other issues he would want to talk about.”

Later, Obama said, "We have to hold Venezuela accountable if, in fact, it is trying to FERMENT terrorist activities in other borders. If Venezuela has violated those rules, we should mobilize all the countries to sanction Venezuela and let them know that that’s not acceptable behavior.”

Shades of Dan Quayle. The word is "FOMENT" Mr. Potato-head, not "FERMENT". Not to mention that everybody already knows Chavez has funneled hundreds of millions of dollars to FARC. Everybody except Barry, that is. Wake up, Obamabots. Time to arise from your sleep. Somebody fetch the holy water.
===
Earlier in May 2008, Obama showed off his vast knowledge of the country he intends to lead, by declaring, “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.”

Wow. This guy is so smart, he has created 8 states that the rest of us don't even know about yet. Impressive.
===
Last May, Obama intoned, “In case you missed it, this week, there was a tragedy in Kansas. Ten thousand people died — an entire town destroyed.”

The actual death toll: 12.
===
In another impressive display of his knowledge of geography, Obama explained why Hillary Clinton was leading in the Kentucky primary: “Sen. Clinton, I think, is much better known, coming from a nearby state of Arkansas. So it’s not surprising that she would have an advantage in some of those states in the middle.”

Those states in the middle.

On what map is Arkansas closer to Kentucky than Illinois? Is it the one with 57 or 58 states, rather than the customary 50 ? For the record, Kentucky BORDERS Illinois, which you'd think Barry would know, seeing as how Illinois is his home state.
===
It isn't only maps that confuse Barry O. It's dates too. Last March, on the anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march in Selma, Alabama, he claimed his parents conceived him as a result of the march.

“There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born.”

Obama was born in 1961. The Selma march took place in 1965. Unless Barry was born 4 years before his own conception, he was telling a whopper.
===
Speaking about a lack of translators in Afghanistan, the Obamanation pointed out, "We only have a certain number of them and if they are all in Iraq, then it’s harder for us to use them in Afghanistan.”

Right. Or it could be because Iraqis and Afghanis speak different languages. The Iraqis speak Arabic or Kurdish, while Afghanis speak Pashto, Farsi, or non-Arabic languages.
===
There are several more Obama gaffes. Some can be found at Michelle Malkin's website here.

And to think, all Dan Quayle did was misspell the word "potato".

"…By engaging Iran [in dialogue], we reclaim the moral high ground — no small feat. If Iran refuses to budge, we have new leverage to expose it as a threat whose bad intentions cannot be explained away" - John Kerry, May 24, 2008

(link)

Behold the mind of John Hanoi Kerry, where the USA needs to "reclaim the moral high ground" from Iran, a terrorist supporting country run by religious extremists (thanks Jimmy), where they do things like execute homosexuals and aspire to, in the words of the Iranian president, "wipe Israel off the map", because Israel is a "stinking rotting corpse". In addition, Kerry deems it "no small feat" for the USA to recapture the moral high ground from Iran. I wonder what caused the USA to sink to such depths in the mind of Messieur Kerry ? It must have been when the evil George W. Bush removed the terrorist supporting mass murdering tyrant Saddam Hussein from power in neighboring Iraq. I wonder if the Kurds agree ? Or the Kuwaitis ? I'm thinking NOT. I doubt if even the Iranians would want Saddam back.

Also, notice how Waffles says talking with Iran will give us "new leverage to expose it as a threat whose bad intentions cannot be explained away". This leads me to wonder if Kerry is the slowest kid in the class, because everybody else already realizes Iran is a threat whose bad intentions are on plain display for all to see. Try to keep up, Mr. Kerry. Better yet, go away.
====
Next up is the Worst Person In The World, Keith Olbermann, who works for one of Barack Obama's public relations arms, MSNBC. Watch this video, where Olby raves on and on and on about Hillary Clinton's unfortunate remark about Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June 1968. Granted, Hillary's comment elicited some pretty bad political imagery, but nobody in their right mind could think that she was talking about staying in the race because Obama could be gunned down. She was only talking about how nominating contests used to go on longer, in response to being asked for about the 10,000th time why she doesn't quit the race. Olberdork, however, not being in his right mind, raves on about it for over 5 minutes, building to a hysterical forced crescendo, blowing Hillary's comment so far out of proportion that you'd almost think she was involved in an assassination attempt herself. Olberdork is the most biased cowardly hack working in the "news" business today. He doesn't even feign fairness or honesty. He doesn't have anyone on his show who doesn't parrot his same dishonest leftwing bilge. There's no fairness and there's certainly no balance. Olberdork loves to make fun of Fox News for being rightwing, but on Fox, there is debate. Both sides of an issue are presented on shows like The O'Reilly Factor or Hannity and Colmes. Those shows purposely have guests come on to argue the opposing points of view. Olberdork works in his safe little leftwing echo chamber, where never is heard a discouraging word, and then Olby has the nerve to sling mud at FoxNews. What a loser he is. If you really want FauxNews, look no further than Keith Olbermann.

I guess it also never occurred to Olberdork that his windy tirade about political assassination gave the idea more breath and exposure than Hillary ever did, by far, even if she had meant it as Olby pretends, which she didn't. I guess I could be wrong on that point, because there probably aren't enough people watching Olbermann's show for him to give ANY idea much exposure. I can't believe someone actually pays Olbermann to flap his lips. There must be millions of Better Persons In The World.

During this week's superfluous dog and pony show hearings with the oil company executives, where Democrats worked up considerable vote-centric righteous indignation over the fact that the oil companies make profits (better they should lose money ?), representative Maxine Waters (D-CA) let the liberal cat out of the bag. When one of the oil execs blamed Congress for the high price of gasoline, citing the fact that Maxine Waters' Democratic party won't allow any domestic oil exploration (and hasn't for decades), Mz. Waters turned into Hugo Chavez, threatening like a good little commie to nationalize the oil industry. Waters seemed to realize what she was saying in mid-unamerican brain fart, and was momentarily at a loss for words. You really have to watch the exchange, it's priceless. It's not often you get a liberal on record telling the truth about their actual agenda. This is one of those rare times. Waters broke the liberal secrecy vow of 'never tell america what we really believe, or america will realize what radicals we are and never vote for us again'. Thanks to Hot Air for the video.

A few months ago, I heard Barack Obama (D-ILL) at a campaign rally, talking about how difficult it was going to be to take away the profits of the oil companies. When I heard Obama say that, I was thinking 'what gives YOU the right to take away the profits of the oil companies ?' They don't have that right, but Maxine Waters has shown the way. All the libs have to do is rescind capitalism and freedom. Piece of cake.

Hope I'm not being a divisive fearmongerer. Hey, what are those stormtroopers doing breaking down my front door ? I'll have to go see what they wa…

We might as well elect this guy.

But first, a joke:

"President Bush blasted Congress for not allowing oil exploration in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. Democrats said it wouldn’t do any good, because it wouldn’t produce oil for 10 years. You know, the same thing they said 10 years ago." - Jay Leno

That joke is funny until you really think about the ramifications of all these years of inaction on ANWR and other domestic oil and energy production that has been blocked by the Democrats. Thanks for nothing, Dems. Hope you're happy now. What's that you always say about helping the little guy ? We don't need your kind of help.
====

Barack Obama's criteria for selecting Supreme Court Justices displays a serious lack of knowledge of how our system of government works. Obama would turn the judicial branch into a legislative branch who would judge cases according to "social and economic justice", as opposed to the rule of law. The following exchange between Megyn Kelly of Fox News and Rudy Giuliani captures the essence of it:

KELLY: It's funny you should mention that, Mr. Mayor, because Barack Obama in a statement responding to John McCain's point today said and I quote, "Barack Obama has always believed that our court should stand up for social and economic justice, and what's truly elitist is to appoint judges who will protect the powerful and leave ordinary Americans to fend for themselves."

[Giuliani starts laughing]

KELLY: Why the laughter?

GIULIANI: Well, the laughter because that is not what a judge in the American legal system is supposed to do. That is not a really responsible definition of a judge. The judge is supposed to interpret the law. And the law is written by other people. It's written by members of the Congress. It's written by framers of the Constitution. It's written by the people when they amend the Constitution.

And then a judge has to have a certain, I would say, dedication to trying to interpret what other people mean and sometimes cannot put their social views into action. This is a very fair issue. John McCain would appoint judges who are more, I would call, originalists in terms of trying to define the meaning that other people had.

I think Senator Obama has made the case very strongly that John McCain has made that, he will appoint social activist judges, judges who tend to try to solve social problems rather than trying to figure out what does the law mean?

KELLY: Yes. Remember Mr. Mayor, during the confirmation hearings for Chief Justice John Roberts, one of the Democratic senators asked him, "Will you stand up for the little guy?" And he said, "Only if the little guy deserves to win under the law."

GIULIANI: Of course. It's not about - this isn't about little guy, big guy, small guy or a large guy, it's about the law. It's about what's fair, what's just, what is the law say. A judge is the interpreter of the law in the American legal system, not someone who creates it.

KELLY: Let me ask you.

GIULIANI: If you end up — if you end up making a judge of somebody who creates the law, then you've made a judge into a legislator, and you really have totally distorted our separation of powers.

The President Of The United States must swear to uphold the U.S. Constitution. Obama has clearly stated here that he would not do so, and instead would seek to overturn the rule of law by appointing Justices who would judge cases based upon the social and economic status of the participants rather than the application of the law. This would undermine our entire Justice system, and subvert the power of the Legislative branch as well.

I know Obama supporters are more interested in those words 'hope' and 'change' than anything else, but this position of Barack Obama's should disqualify him from being the President. This is government 101, and Obama either doesn't understand it or intentionally wants to destroy it. Either way, it's entirely unacceptable.

YES WE CAN [say 'NO' to this fool]. This story should be ALL OVER the media airwaves, because it affects every american and our entire system of government. This is an issue that people SHOULD care about. We can't afford to let the Left hijack our system of justice in this way. On an importance scale from 1 to 10, this is a 10. We can't let Obama lead this undermining 'change'. Some change is bad, and this change would be very bad indeed.

Anyone who disagrees, please go read a textbook on America's system of government, asap. This is a public service announcement.

The Global Poverty Act (S.2433). That sounds worthwhile. We all want to reduce global poverty. This pleasant sounding bill is sponsored by none other than Senator Barack Obama (D-God), the "new kind of politician", The Man From Hope (no wait, that was Bubba Clinton, the sexual predator president), The Audacity Of Hopester, who transcends all who came before him. He's The Great And Powerful Oz-bama. Swoon at mere mention of his name, ye lowly mortals. Pay no attention to the man in the booth.

The Global Poverty Act would commit the US to paying 0.7 percent of our Gross National Product to the United Nations to meet the UN's 2000 Millenium Development goals. This amounts to a phenomenal 13-year total of $845 billion over and above what the US already spends in foreign aid. The US gives more in aid than any other country on this planet to begin with.

If this sounds like a global tax to you, well, it does to me too, payable to one of the most corrupt organizations on earth, the United Nations (who, btw, recently had it's Human Rights Council start on a mission to find countries who are "abusing freedom of speech". I hope you heard that. The UN is looking for countries who are too free, and calling that a problem. That's what happens when the Human Rights Council is dominated by the Arab League. They start prosecuting freedom rather than human rights violators. Also, guess who the biggest human rights violator on earth is, according to the mega-corrupt UN ??? If you said "Israel", you win first prize). The UN is a complete joke, is increasingly anti-american, is anti-Israel, is becoming anti-human rights, and is anti-sanity…and Barack Obama and others want to give it a big old chunk of our money, since we have so much extra that we don't need. All you foks out there have tons of extra money laying around, don't you ? Of course you do. That's why we don't have any problems here in America. We are rich. Yahoo ! It's a non-stop party here in the USA. The streets are paved with gold.

If you ask me, we should be considering withdrawing from the UN, not surrendering our sovereignty to it through a global tax. I think the chances of the UN eradicating global poverty with our global tax dollars are slightly less than my chances of finding an armed nuclear device in my backyard this morning.

It just occurred to me that I might be, to quote Obama, "distracting us from the issues that americans truly care about" by bringing this stuff about Barack's global tax up. If so, I truly and deeply apologize, and if Obama does become president, I will report to a re-education camp immediately. Until that time, I will operate on the assumption that this is still a somewhat free country guided by a Constitution, where the notion of paying a global tax to an unfriendly group of corrupt nations not only wouldn't be considered a good idea, but would be considered treasonous. I guess that makes me old-school, out of touch with Barry O's "new kind of politics". I hope they have real orange juice at the re-education camp. It's so much better than that sugary orange drink or that Tang stuff, and I've never even tried Sunny D. Like I said, I'm old school. But I digress…

Wait a second…Could it be that the Global Poverty Act is intended to BRING poverty to the entire globe ? Now, THAT makes sense. I should have thought of that earlier. We redistribute the wealth away from the rich people (like you and I. "Rich" will be defined as "anyone with a roof over their head"), and we give it to the UN, who will then do something with it, resulting in Global Poverty. Got it. I wonder why Obama didn't explain it like that to begin with ?

The text of the Global Poverty Act purposely avoids ANY mention of the cost of the bill, instead making it sound more like a generic and compassionate commitment to reduce poverty, as follows:

"…[The legislation] requires the President to develop and implement a comprehensive strategy to further the United States foreign policy objective of promoting the reduction of global poverty, the elimination of extreme global poverty, and the achievement of the Millennium Development Goal of reducing by one-half the proportion of people worldwide, between 1990 and 2015, who live on less than $1 per day."

It's only when you get to the UN's Millenium Development Goals that you discover the 0.7% tax on US GNP. Nice trick, Mr. Obama. That trick got the House to pass the bill without discussion via a voice vote back in february 2008. It is set to come up for a Senate vote soon, and it seems nobody is raising much of an objection. It seems nobody is even mentioning it. So far, this is pure stealth legislation. I have yet to hear the issue raised in any newscast or in any debate. Tim Russert just spent an entire hour with Barack Obama on Meet The Press and didn't raise the issue. Making the US subservient to the United Nations seems like a major issue to me. I hope it is to others as well.

And incidentally (or not), the Global Poverty Act would also commit the USA to the Kyoto Protocol, which is part of the Millenium Development Goals. Funny how that works.

You can send a blast fax to president Bush and Republican congressional leaders to ask that they stop the Global Poverty Act here.

I haven't had much time available for posting this week, and only limited access to a computer, so thanks for bearing with me. Things should return to normal soon, assuming any of you think I'm normal in the first place.
====
The following mythical conversation between Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and president George W. Bush demonstrates the politics of oil:

Pelosi: Mr. President, you simply must do something about these high gas prices.
Bush: We could drill for oil in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
Pelosi: Forget it.
Bush: How about expanded offshore oil drilling ?
Pelosi: No.
Bush: Build new refineries ?
Pelosi: Definitely not.
Bush: Clean coal technology ?
Pelosi: Not going to happen.
Bush: Nuclear power, then.
Pelosi: You must be joking.
Bush: Um, we could lift the federal gas tax.
Pelosi: No way.

Pelosi (later in a press conference): This administration refuses to do anything about the high price of gasoline, which is hurting hard-working american families.
====
I have to give props to Hillary Clinton for having the nerve to go toe to toe with Bill O'Reilly on Fox News. I don't always agree with Hillary, but she made her case forcefully with O'Reilly. Hillary is the superior Democratic candidate by far over Barack 'The Timidity Of Hope' Obama. Here's a link to some of what Hillary said on the show. If you have a chance to watch the video, it's worth it. Hillary has some brass.
====
Unfounded conspiracy theory of the week:

The D.C. Madam committed suicide ? Really ? She knew of people in high places, and I mean 'knew' in the biblical sense. Hmmm……….
====
Random muse:

Since the Democratic primary process makes about as much sense as screen doors on a submarine, I wonder why it hasn't occurred to the far lefties to completely subvert the will of the people and make Dennis Kucinich the Democratic presidential nominee ? I know how much I'm looking forward to that Department Of Peace.
====
I know I said I was sick of Jeremiah Wright last time, and I am, but this was too funny to pass up, plus it will irritate Obama supporters (and all liberals, who react to Ann Coulter like Superman reacts to kryptonite). Read Coulter's comic take on the Jeremiah Wright story. (link) Here's a snippet:

In his speech to the National Press Club on Monday, for example, Wright described America as a country of "segregation, Jim Crow, lynching and the separate-but-equal fantasy." Then he ran outside to feed more quarters into the meter where his time machine was parked.

Wright described this as a country that supported the "racist regime of South Africa" and "the Contras, who were killing the peasants and the Miskito Indians in those two countries" — as opposed to the Sandinistas, who were equal-opportunity murderers with a more diverse group of victims.

He said this is a country that "cuts food stamps and spends billions fighting in an unjust war in Iraq," neglecting to add that before you can cut the food stamp program, you must have a country that has a food stamp program.

He said we are a country that sent "over 4,000 American boys and girls of every race to die over a lie." And Wright said it is a country "where I can worship God on Sunday morning wearing a black clergy robe and kill others on Sunday evening wearing a white Klan robe." (Unless, like me, you do all your Klan-related murdering on "casual Fridays.")