In trying to decide who should be our next President, we first have to ask if our current President deserves a second term. This should be based upon his performance in office, not on the political party to which he belongs.

Does Obama deserve a second term ?

Let's look at his record.

I have to start in February 2008, when then candidate Obama brought his campaign roadshow to Ohio. I went to see him speak at Youngstown State University. The three biggest cheers Obama received from Ohioans that day were when he 1) promised to rework NAFTA, 2) promised to close Guantanamo Bay within 12 months, and 3) promised to end the Iraq War in 2009.

Needless to say, none of those things happened. Obama never had any intention of reworking NAFTA. He forgot that promise the minute he left Ohio. As President, Obama has pushed for more free trade agreements, and recently signed free trade agreements with South Korea, Panama, and Columbia. These were the largest free trade deals signed by the United States since NAFTA.

Guantanamo Bay is still open.

The Iraq War ended, but it ended under the timeline established by Obama's predecessor, President Bush. It definitely didn't end in 2009, as Obama promised Ohioans.

Obama lied to my face and to every Ohioan that day in 2008. An inauspicious start. I knew he was lying then, that he was the kind of guy who would tell people whatever they wanted to hear in order to become President. I don't trust those kinds of politicians, which is why I voted for Hillary Clinton in the 2008 Democratic primary. Obama was not only as inexperienced a politico as any who ever ran for President, with zero prior management experience, but he was dishonest as well. I did what I could to defeat him, but alas, it didn't work, and now we're in the toilet.

Obama did keep some of his 2008 promises to Ohioans, like ObamaCare. He also promised to increase federal spending by $874 billion per year that day at Youngstown State, though he didn't put it into those words, because the electorate would have had a negative reaction to that type of honesty. Instead of putting price tags on his spending binge, Obama made all sorts of promises about "investing" in this, that, and almost everything, while never mentioning the costs. This President has never met any spending he doesn't like. Obama has "accomplished" every bit of his spending increase promise, which leads me to the primary reason we shouldn't give Obama a second term in office…he is the most fiscally irresponsible President in American history, bar none.

We have had annual deficits over $1 trillion ever year Obama has been in office. He has run up $4.6 trillion in debt in only 3 years in office. This far outpaces the previous "most fiscally irresponsible" President, George W. Bush, who ran up $4.8 trillion in debt over 8 years in office. Anybody who would vote for a second Obama term after such a record should have his/her head examined. The only people who should be supporting Obama's fiscal recklessness are citizens of China, who stand to gain from our destruction.

And what has all Obama's fiscal insanity accomplished ??? Unemployment is STILL at 8.5%, and it has been over 9% for the majority of Obama's presidency. If you recall, it was 7.6% when Obama took office. We have a huge net job loss during Obama's reign, though to hear him tell it, he is creating all kinds of jobs. That's one reason of many I call him the Great Prevaricator. Unemployment was mostly in the 5% range when Bush was President. Great job, Barry. Not only are you spending us into oblivion and wrecking the future of our country, but we aren't even gaining any temporary benefit from it now. You have managed to be the worst of both worlds. Most amazingly of all, the new ObamaCare spending hasn't even kicked in yet. That starts in full force in 2014. Federal spending is already the highest in the history of the country (barring WWII), and Obama's BIG spending program hasn't even started yet. We are borrowing 43 cents of every dollar the federal government spends WITHOUT ObamaCare spending in place. Imagine what it will be AFTER ObamaCare.

While I'm on the subject of ObamaCare, let's not forget that the Obama admimistration lied about it's costs and effects on the debt. The Great Prevaricator claims ObamaCare will decrease the debt, but he made that calculation by having the CBO measure ten years of revenue against only six years of benefits. That is profoundly dishonest, and sadly typical of the way our government misleads us.

Then the Great Prevaricator has the audacity to pretend increasing taxes on the rich by 5% is going to pay for all his crazy spending increases. That may be his most egregious lie of all. There is NO WAY his numbers come anywhere close to adding up, but I rarely hear a peep about this from the mainstream media. Perhaps there would be a few more media types peeping if 90% of them weren't Democrats. We'd be hearing the truth about the high speed rail to fiscal destruction we are on if the President was a Republican. Of that I have no doubt, but when a Democrat sits in the catbird seat, all we hear about is taxing the rich. I hate to break it to you America, but everyone's taxes will have to go through the roof in one way or another to pay for all this spending and government growth. Those are the facts, even though your illustrious media doesn't want to clue you in to the facts. The prevarication goes far beyond just the White House.

Somebody will also have to explain to me exactly how we are supposed to create jobs in this country going forward when our government spending and taxation levels, our unpaid-for entitlement explosion, and our building Mount Everest of debt are going to drain our pocketbooks and decrease consumer demand for generations to come. How does that work, exactly ??? The unvarnished facts there are, it DOESN'T work. At all. It would be real nice if we had a President who would level with us about these things, rather than the performing circus clown we have in office now.

Just say NO-bama. Change starts at the top. Obama has had his chance, and he failed miserably. It's time to try someone else.

Alternately, you could oppose Mitt Romney and support Obama's reign of destruction because Romney's a Mormon, Romney worked for Bain Capital, or because Romney changed his position on abortion and health care…..but that would make you somewhat of a self-destructive fool, wouldn't it ? We already KNOW Obama is a failure. Romney hasn't had his chance yet. If Romney turned out to be as bad as Obama, we'd be breaking even. But there's a very good chance Romney's policies would be better for the country. I don't know about the rest of you, but when my car falls apart and won't run, I don't try to keep driving it. I get a new one. 2012 is definitely the time for a new car. The Obama-mobile is a lemon.

Because I have spent the last two posts going after Newt Gingrich to an extent, in fairness I am providing a link to Gingrich's website, where he answers recent charges made against him. I report, you decide (hmmm. Where have I heard that phrase before ? Sounds familiar).
===
Larry Elder Treats Chris Matthews Like Chris Matthews And Every Other MSNBC Host Treats Conservative Guests…And Matthews Doesn't Like It One Bit:

Payback is a you-know-what, Mr. Matthews.
===
House Rejects Balanced Budget Amendment (link):

The U.S. House of Representatives rejected a proposal Friday to amend the Constitution to require a balanced budget, seen by many as the only way to force lawmakers to hold the fiscal line and reverse the flow of federal red ink.

The 261-165 vote, though a clear majority, was 23 votes short of the two-thirds required to advance a constitutional amendment. Democrats voted overwhelmingly against it, apparently swayed by the arguments of their leaders that a balanced budget requirement would force Congress to make devastating cuts to social programs.

Four Republicans joined the Democrats in opposing the measure: House Budget Committee Chairman Paul Ryan (R-Wis.), House Rules Committee Chairman David Dreier (R-Calif.), Rep. Justin Amash (R-Mich.) and and Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Texas.).

$15 trillion in national debt, annual trillion dollar deficits, and Congress doesn't have the votes for a balanced budget amendment. Yet another sign of our destruction.

I expect Democrats to vote against fiscal sanity, but….did I see that right ? Rep. Ryan voted AGAINST the balanced budget amendment ? What's up with that ? Here's Ryan's explanation:

Ryan said he was worried the version of the amendment could pave the way for more taxes, instead of reducing spending, to balance the budget, The Hill reported.

“Spending is the problem, yet this version of the BBA makes it more likely taxes will be raised, government will grow, and economic freedom will be diminished,” Ryan said. “Without a limit on government spending, I cannot support this amendment.”

Can't say I agree with Ryan's logic there. Tax increases may be bad, but this out-of-control debt bomb is far worse.

This is the first balanced budget amendment vote in 16 years. In 1995, a balanced budget amendment passed the House, when Republicans and 72 Democrats voted for it. That effort failed to pass the Senate by one vote, thanks to Democrat obstruction. Think of how much better off this country would be today if we had passed that amendment in 1995, and had not accumulated $10 trillion in new debt since. Thanks for nothing, Dumb-o-crats. This time around, only 25 Democrats in the House voted for a balanced budget amendment. I guess the Democratic party prefers national bankruptcy. In fact, I think that should be Obama's 2012 campaign slogan. DEBT FOREVER ! VOTE OBAMA.
===
White House Shooter Made Videos:
I've been wondering why Oscar Ortega-Hernandez, the man suspected of shooting at the White House in an assassination attempt (his bullet was stopped by bulletproof glass), hated Obama so much. Ortega-Hernandez has referred to himself as a modern day Jesus, and called Obama the anti-Christ. As it turns out, Ortega-Hernandez made a video in hopes of being on Oprah's show:

VIDEO: Alleged White House Shooter Oscar Ortega-Hernandez: MyFoxDC.com

I wonder where our modern day Jesus/assassin got that "war for oil" stuff ??? Any liberals out there wish to hazard a guess ? I know how concerned y'all are about political rhetoric leading to violence.

In related news, the Occupy San Diego dumbsh*ts held a moment of silence to express "solidarity" with the shooter, because authorities thought Ortega-Hernandez may have been hanging out with the Occupy D.C. crowd (which seems now not to be the case).

Real brainiacs, those Occupiers. The Occupier arrest count now tops 3,600.
===
My, How That Hope Did Change:

Here's candidate Obama in 2008, castigating Bush (justifiably) for Bush's debt accumulation:

"The problem is that the way Bush has done it over the last eight years is to take out a credit card from the Bank of China in the name of our children, driving up our national debt from $5 trillion for the first 42 presidents, [and] number 43 added $4 trillion dollars by his lonesome, so that we now have over $9 trillion of debt."

Obama called Bush's spending and debt runup "unpatriotic" then, but now he calls Republicans unpatriotic because they won't spend and runup even more debt. Go figure. Obama has added $4.5 trillion to the debt in less than three years. It took Bush nearly eight years to do the same. If the debt trajectory continues and Obama is elected to a second term, he will add more to the national debt than every other President in U.S. history COMBINED. That is called epic fail, my friends.

I found the following current event quotes on The Patriot Post.

Insane The New Sane: "The same politicians who spent $1.7 trillion more than they collected, in just this year alone, say the problem is that private citizens are not paying enough. … [B]ecause the political class has made the national debt so high, it is able to insist that taking a chance on the power of liberty is an irresponsible gamble. Because the government lives so far beyond its means, it would be irresponsible to provide it with reduced means. This is how we have reached the madness of a moment when the national debt is used as an argument against spending reductions, or growth-oriented tax and regulatory policies. The insane problem becomes a weapon against rational solutions." –columnist John Hayward

There's nothing for me to add to that. Well said.

Moron Of The Week: "Isn't the Tea Party — I'm not trying to call them names or anything. I just want to ask a very serious question: Aren't they exactly what the Founding Fathers feared most? Which is people who are ignorant about the way the world works come to power. That is what the Founding Fathers hated the most. They were not for direct democracy" –HBO's Bill Maher

I'm still trying to figure out why Bill Maher has a political television show on HBO. His neverending ignorance on political matters is astounding. In the above quote, Maher not only demonstrates a cluelessness about the Founding Fathers and the original Boston Tea Party (it was about TAXES, Mr. Maher), he also doesn't seem to understand that today's Tea Party is not a direct democracy, it's a protest movement and only one of many political forces in this country. The Tea Party does not govern. Our elected representatives perform that function. That is and always has been a representative democracy. The "serious question" Bill Maher asks here is a complete joke.

Leadership Failure: "Meanwhile, the World's Greatest Orator bemoans the 'intransigence' of Republicans. OK, what's your plan? Give us one actual program you're willing to cut, right now. Oh, don't worry, says Barack Obluffer. To demonstrate how serious he is, he's offered to put on the table for fiscal year 2012 spending cuts of (stand well back now) $2 billion. That would be a lot in, say, Iceland or even Australia. Once upon a time it would have been a lot even in Washington. But today $2 billion is what the Brokest Nation in History borrows every 10 hours. In other words, in less time than he spends sitting across the table negotiating his $2 billion cut, he's already borrowed it all back. A negotiation with Obama is literally not worth the time." –columnist Mark Steyn

The extent of Obama's leadership on the debt limit has been to say he wants revenues raised along with spending cuts, and he didn't even care about spending cuts until the Republicans forced him to care. That's how this President leads…by following.

Hijacking The Tax And Spend Crowd: "Here's the thing about Obama. He ran as a transformational president. He sees himself as transformational. He always has. What occurred between 2008 and 2010 is the Tea Party. And the Tea Party has stopped that kind of transformation from occurring because it has hijacked the Republican Party and the John Boehners of the world who would have cut a deal with the president of the United States. It has hijacked the Republican Party and it has now become substantially just a no-tax party as opposed to a party that cares about the deficit. I think no tax trumps their caring and concern about the deficit." –CNN's Gloria Borger

Poor Obama. His transformational dreams were crushed by the Tea Party. Sniff, sniff. Cry me a river. In reality, it was, well, reality that crushed Obama's unrealistic dreams. Plus, if any party NEEDED hijacking after the big spending, debt accumulating Bush years, it was the Republican party. Thank goodness the Tea Party arrived on the scene and changed the discussion, because without it we wouldn't even be talking about reining in the sole cause of our fiscal unsustainability – big government.

Speaking of which…

The Left Calls It 'The Plan': "Forget all the numbers being tossed around in Washington — the millions and billions and trillions of dollars being taxed, borrowed, printed and spent as the country approaches the Aug. 2 debt-ceiling deadline. … Forget the fact that such 'entitlements' as Social Security and Medicare — social-insurance programs that the public long thought to be actuarially sound — have been exposed as little more than legal Ponzi schemes, paying today's benefits out of tomorrow's borrowed receipts. Instead, just ask yourself this simple question: When did it become the primary function of the federal government to send millions of Americans checks? For this, in essence, is what the debt-ceiling fight is all about — the inexorable and ultimately fatal growth of the welfare state." –columnist Michael Walsh

This reminds me of a USA Today article from a few months ago, titled "Americans Depend More On Federal Aid Than Ever". Here's a piece of it:

Americans depended more on government assistance in 2010 than at any other time in the nation's history, a USA TODAY analysis of federal data finds. The trend shows few signs of easing, even though the economic recovery is nearly 2 years old.

A record 18.3% of the nation's total personal income was a payment from the government for Social Security, Medicare, food stamps, unemployment benefits and other programs in 2010. Wages accounted for the lowest share of income — 51.0% — since the government began keeping track in 1929.

Americans got an average of $7,427 in benefits each in 2010, up from an inflation-adjusted $4,763 in 2000 and $3,686 in 1990. The federal government pays about 90% of the benefits.

"What's frightening is the Baby Boomers haven't really started to retire," says University of Michigan economist Donald Grimes of the 77 million people born from 1946 through 1964 whose oldest wave turns 65 this year. "That's when the cost of Medicare will start to explode."

If you think things are bad now, America, prepare yourselves. You ain't seen nuthin' yet. Unless we change course dramatically, in a decade we'll be looking back at these times as the good old days.

The political left in this country wants the citizenry to be dependent, and, btw, disarmed. A passive and helpless population is more easily controlled.

My closing quote comes from our "transformational" President himself, though it sounds more like politics as usual to me.

Blaming Bush: "We don't need a constitutional amendment to do our jobs. The Constitution already tells us to do our jobs — and to make sure that the government is living within its means and making responsible choices. … We don't need a balanced budget amendment. We simply need to make these tough choices and be willing to take on our bases. And everybody knows it. … It turns out that our problem is we cut taxes without paying for them over the last decade; we ended up instituting new programs like a prescription drug program for seniors that was not paid for; we fought two wars, we didn't pay for them; we had a bad recession that required a Recovery Act and stimulus spending and helping states — and all that accumulated and there's interest on top of that." –Barack Obama

Maybe we wouldn't need a balanced budget constitutional amendment if the government showed any indication it could live within it's means or discipline itself, but it has not done that. When I hear Obama whining about a balanced budget amendment, all I hear is him thinking, 'but how will I spend and borrow more money ? How will I play politics and buy votes ?'

Presidential campaign season is here, which means the mainstream media will begin actively campaigning for the Democrats, as usual. One of the ways the media does this is by asking Democratic candidates policy questions on current issues, and then turning around and playing Trivial Pursuit with Republican candidates, asking them history and science questions in the hope they will give a wrong answer. The purpose of this media game of GOP Jeopardy is to make Republican candidates look stupid. In the case of Michelle Bachmann (R-WI), it looks like it will work. Here's Bachmann being interviewed by ABC's George Stephanopoulos:

Stephanopoulos: …You said that the Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery.

Bachmann: Well if you look at one of our Founding Fathers, John Quincy Adams, that’s absolutely true. He was a very young boy when he was with his father serving essentially as his father’s secretary. He tirelessly worked throughout his life to make sure that we did in fact one day eradicate slavery….

Stephanopoulos: He wasn’t one of the Founding Fathers – he was a president, he was a Secretary of State, he was a member of Congress, you’re right he did work to end slavery decades later. But so you are standing by this comment that the Founding Fathers worked tirelessly to end slavery?

Buzzz ! Sorry, candidate Bachmann, but John Quincy Adams was not one of the Founding Fathers. His daddy, John Adams, was one. Thanks for playing our game, and please accept this consolation prize, a $50 gift certificate to Olive Garden. Now, on to our next contestant, GOP candidate Rick Santorum. Mr. Santorum, do you believe everything in the Bible is literally true ? Was Jonas really swallowed by that whale ? Is the earth only 6,000 years old ?…Please stay tuned, in our next segment we'll be asking President Obama if he feels the Republicans are hindering economic recovery !

And so it goes.

What will be lost in this media game of Trip Up The Republican is the fact that Bachmann was right on the larger question – many of the Founding Fathers did want to end slavery. Even the ones who owned slaves, like Thomas Jefferson, spoke about ending it, but it was far easier said than done, as the Civil War attests. It took the deaths of 600,000-700,000 men to finally end it 87 years after our founding as a country.

But all we'll hear about from the media is how dumb that b*tch Bachmann is. Nobody will say how dumb Stephanopolos is for not knowing many of our Founders wanted to end slavery.

Even when Bachmann says something boilerplate, it raises hackles with some folks. Media jackal Chris Matthews of MSLSD did his crazy dance when Bachmann made a statement about returning to our founding principles of limited constitutional government:

After playing a clip of Michele Bachmann longing for a return to the "Founders' vision of a constitutionally conservative government," MSNBC's Chris Matthews on Monday assumed the Republican presidential candidate meant "slavery."

The Hardball anchor offered bizarre analogies, questioning former RNC Chair Michael Steele on Bachmann's 2012 campaign: "What is this, Michael? The Protestant Reformation? That somehow we're going back to the purity of the original Christian church?"

Immediately jumping to the worst interpretation, Matthews continued, "We're going back to the original perfection of slaveholders and how perfect they were and government is the enemy. She speaks pure Tea Party lingo."

After Steele asserted that Bachmann was simply "reminding us of foundational principles," the liberal anchor smeared, "What? Slavery?"

What kind of pinhead thinks returning to our constitutional principles means slavery, or the Protestant Reformation (which started in 1517, btw) ????? A pinhead like Chris Matthews, that's who. Now you know why I call that channel MSLSD. This is the kind of hallucinogenic trash they serve up all night, every night. That channel is almost unwatchable, though I do watch it, because I feel I must keep abreast of all things political. See how I suffer for you, readers ?

Even our better media people get sucked in to the media's bias vortex, such as when Chris Wallace of Fox News Sunday asked Bachmann if she was a "flake" (he only asked because the rest of the media keeps saying Bachmann's a flake. The media creates it's own wind). Wallace is known for asking everyone tough questions, which I admire, but that one was insulting. Wallace, to his credit, apologized, unlike the jackal Matthews, who keeps calling Bachmann all manner of insulting names, most recently "balloon head". Is this really what things have come to in this country ? This is how alleged professional journalists talk about presidential candidates now ? How sad.

I'm sure the MSLSD'ers will be getting a big laugh today over the fact that Bachmann said John Wayne was born in Waterloo, Iowa, when in fact his family only lived in Waterloo. He was born in a different town in Iowa. But John Wayne Gacy was born in Madison, so that dumb b*tch Bachmann probably got the two confused !!! That's the ticket !!! Let's keep making it up as we go along !!! We're PROFESSIONALS here at MSLSD !!! Aaaaaarrghhh !!!

But when President Obama said a few days ago that he awarded a Medal Of Honor to a living soldier, when in fact that soldier died in 2006 and the medal was awarded posthumously, the media somehow doesn't notice, and nobody in any of these "57 states" thinks Obama is a dumb b*tch, not even the people who speak "Austrian".

And what is Bachmann's position on, say, marginal tax rates or free trade policies ??? I doubt anyone in our mainstream media would even think to ask, but be sure to tune in tonight, when NBC asks Mitt Romney for the hundredth time if he's a member of a cult. It's must-see-tee-vee.

I shamelessly stole the above headline from commenter 2012, because it's too perfect not to use. No way could I come up with a better one. Thanks, 2012 !

The State Of The Nation: Unemployment just rose to 9.1%. Economic growth is anemic. Half the feeble number of jobs created last month came from McDonald's fast food restaurants (I wonder how Oz-bama is going to take credit for that ?). We're in debt up to our eyeballs. Housing prices are continuing downward. Gasoline is expensive. Health care costs are exploding. Commodity prices are rising. Congressional Democrats haven't produced a budget in over two years. We're involved in three wars in the Middle East. We're on an unsustainable fiscal path…..so many big problems in this country…

So let's talk about Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-NY), since that's all our media seems interested in. Okay, I'm not being fair to our illustrious media. They are also interested in the sex scandals of John Edwards and Arnold Schwarzenegger, not to mention their ongoing obsession with bashing Sarah Palin all day every day (FYI – Palin was right about Paul Revere, you media dolts. Read a history book).

As for Weinergate, it turns out the weiner WAS Weiner's, and Weiner is a lying, twittering weiner who likes to sext up women on the internet. Is anyone shocked by this stuff anymore ? It seems almost routine by now. Weiner pulled a series of collosal boners in the aftermath of Weinergate, acting all cock-y and abrasive with reporters, but the New York Congressman says he will not go limp and resign. He still has a hard-on for power, and hopes to win future erections, er, I mean, elections. What a d*ck. House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) says she will conduct an ethics investigation, to see if Weiner indeed has any ethics. All the evidence says no, and there's only a snowball's chance that liberal spinmeisters can still blame this all on Andrew Breitbart, as they tried to do when they ejaculated prematurely in his direction prior to Weiner blowing his load on televsion yesterday in the face of so much evidence against him and his penis. Now, of course, Weiner is truly sorry…sorry he got caught.

About the only thing that stands out about Weinergate, other than Weiner's shorts, is how bad his cover story was. It was obvious he was lying from the beginning. Very disappointing. I expect much better lies from our elected officials, and Weiner didn't live up to established congressional lying standards. Thus, how can he have a future on Capitol Hill ? I don't see it. Weiner could try to transform himself into one of those rare politicians who say what they really think, like Ron Paul (R-TX) or Dennis Kucinich (D-OH), but there's no surer way to be ostracized from the Congressional Country Club than that. Your own party will treat you like a loveable crank if you deviate from the party line, and the media will treat you like a joke. A media whore like Weiner wouldn't enjoy being laughed at, though at this point I don't see how the laughing could possibly get any louder.

For the benefit of Mr. Weiner, I offer the following video clip as instruction in the art of lying your butt off with sincerity. I present the Gold Standard, the Master Prevaricator, the most sincere liar I know, former presidential and vice-presidential candidate John Edwards:

That's how it's done, Mr. Weiner.

You can view some of Weiner's pathetic, combative, double-talking lies here. What an amateur, and I say that with "certitude".

Finally, let's not forget how the left-wing pseudo-news organization known as MSNBC tried it's best to discredit Breitbart to draw the attention away from their liberal man Weiner, a frequent MSNBC guest. This is must see video. It is truly sad, and truly representative of the way MSNBC conducts itself.

met·a·phor -noun
1. a figure of speech in which a term or phrase is applied to something to which it is not literally applicable in order to suggest a resemblance, as in “A mighty fortress is our god.”
2. something used, or regarded as being used, to represent something else; emblem; symbol
——————————————————————–

Following the Tucson shootings, our professional media quickly reached the conclusion that metaphors were the root cause (i.e., Palin's metaphorical "crosshairs" map, Palin using the word "reload" metaphorically, Palin's face appearing on metaphorically-shaped television screens, etc). According to a recent CNN poll, a plurality of Democrats believe Palin's metaphors are partially responsible for the Tucson shootings (in related news, a plurality of Democrats also believe their computers are living beings, unlike their fetuses).

Thus, even though metaphors have a long, illustrious history as powerful figurative literary techniques, CNN moved to ban them after it was discovered liberals had no idea what words like "figurative" and "metaphor" actually mean. Liberals suspect they may be covert calls for political violence. The jury is still out on whether liberals understand the meaning of the word "historical", though it doesn't look good. History may have to be banned next, as well as all words containing more than five letters. A DailyKos diarist pointed out that if you rearrange the letters in the word "metaphor", it spells out "team orph", which might be a reference to a shadowy right-wing militia-type extremist group. One can't be too careful. Those right-wingers are freaking diabolical (that means 'evil', liberals).

Here's professional newsman John King of CNN to explain the problem:

King: "Before we go to break, I want to make a quick point. We were having a discussion about the Chicago mayoral race. My friend Andy Shaw used the term 'in the crosshairs' in talking about the candidates. We're trying, we're trying to get away from that language. Andy is a good friend, he's covered politics for a long time, but we're trying to get away from that kind of language."

I can only assume liberals were flooding the FBI with calls demanding that John King's friend Andy Shaw be arrested for inciting political violence, so CNN's view is understandable. Laughable, but understandable.

There is rumor that President Obama may soon appoint a Metaphorical Oversight Czar (MOC) to monitor the situation and ferret out violations of figurative speech. I mean, without that, people might start going around saying all kinds of things, saying whatever they want to say. Imagine what kind of country that would be. Obama definitely should MOC speech like that before it gets out of control, don't you think ?

Congressional Democrats willl introduce their landmark Keeping An Eye On The English Teacher legislation next week, with a special 800-number for schoolkids to call in order to keep the authorities apprised of non-acceptable metaphorical speech. Upon hearing this news, Joan Copperfield, head of the Camden County Teacher's Union And Pancake Breakfast, commented that the new legislation "was like putting a gun to our teacher's heads". Copperfield was immediately relieved of duty for a speech violation, and was last heard being dragged off screaming, "but that was a simile ! It was a simile !" Liberals were not moved by Copperfield's pleas. Liberal spokesman Grant Inquisiter responded, "whatever a simile is, we don't like those either. Copperfield is acting like a horse's ass !" Inquister was also immediately relieved of duty. Liberals are looking for a mute to replace him as spokesperson.

Before that bitch Sarah Palin came along and ruined metaphors for CNN and everyone else, the Washington Examiner points out that CNN used THE EXACT SAME CROSSHAIR METAPHORS when referring to Palin and others. Here we go:

"Palin's moose-hunting episode on her reality show enraged People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals, and now, she's square in the crosshairs of big time Hollywood producer, Aaron Sorkin," reported A.J. Hammer of CNN's Headline News on December 8.

"Companies like MasterCard are in the crosshairs for cutting ties with WikiLeaks," said CNN Kiran Chetry in a December 9 report.

"Thousands of people living in areas that are in the crosshairs have been told to evacuate," Chetry said in a December 21 report on flooding in California.

"He's in their crosshairs," said a guest in a December 21 CNN discussion of suspects in a missing-person case.

"This will be the first time your food will be actually in the crosshairs of the FDA," business reporter Christine Romans said on December 22.

"The U.S. commander in the East has Haqqani in his crosshairs," CNN's Barbara Starr reported on December 28, referring to an Afghan warlord.

"We know that health care reform is in the crosshairs again," CNN's Joe Johns reported on January 3.

All these irresponsible "crosshairs" incitements were uttered on CNN in the month prior to the Tucson shootings. Coincidence ? Or subversive plot ? Only liberals know for sure. Maybe we should call the Truthers. They're always on top of things.

I made a phone call to CNN's Vice President In Charge Of Figurative News for an explanation of why CNN used the violent phrase "in the crosshairs" so often, and why that was different from what Palin did. CNN's FIgurative VP replied, "we're going to try not to do it in the future, but it was alright when we did do it, because we aren't Sarah Palin". Then he hung up on me.

Back to you, Soledad.

Literally minutes after the Tucson shootings, the media magically created a connection out of thin air between the the shootings and Sarah Palin's crosshairs map targeting Rep. Gabrielle Giffords and others for defeat in the 2010 elections. As profoundly dishonest as it is to suggest Palin was somehow advocating violence with that map, the media was undaunted. They embraced their dishonesty, and heaped blame on Palin, despite a complete lack of evidence. Tucson's Democratic Sheriff Dupnik joined in the clue-less chorus, blaming "violent" rhetoric and conservative talk radio for the murders, although Dupnik admitted he had absolutely no evidence to backup his claim either. 'Facts ? We don't need no stinkin' facts', bleated these dishonest media whores.

What has been the result of all this fact-less blame casting aimed at Palin ? Oh, irony of ironies, the unbased hatred appears to have further endangered Palin's life:

An aide close to Sarah Palin says death threats and security threats have increased to an unprecedented level since the shooting in Arizona, and the former Alaska governor's team has been talking to security professionals.

Since the shooting in Tucson, Palin has taken much heat for her "crosshairs" map that targeted 20 congressional Democrats in the 2010 mid-term election, including that of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords, who was the main target of Saturday's attack.

Nice going, media. You have ginned up a fact-less controversy to smear Palin, and as a result of your lies, you have increased death threats against her to an "unprecedented level". You must be so proud.

Palin fired back at the media (oops, sorry. We aren't supposed to use words like "fired" anymore), saying:

"Journalists and pundits should not manufacture a blood libel that serves only to incite the very hatred and violence they purport to condemn," [Palin] said in an early morning Facebook post today.

Palin's comment nailed it, and the culpable media types should apologize, but because it is Palin saying these words, the media is instead all atwitter about Palin's NEW "controversial" comments (I swear, the media would call it "controversial" if Palin read the dictionary aloud). Here's the source of the "controversy" this time around, in case you missed it, as you probably did. From ABC News:

The term "blood libel" has been used historically to falsely accuse Jews of using Christian children's blood to prepare their Passover matzoh. The myth is said to have begun in Europe as early as the 12th century, perpetuated by the death of a small boy in England in 1144.

It's a term that Jews say has been used to incite anti-Semitism and justify violence against them for centuries.

Sarah used the words "blood libel", and now she's anti-semitic ? Oh, for crying out loud. That's ridiculous, but others say 'you betcha she is', as our media is only too glad to report:

The Jewish Fund for Justice assailed Palin for abusing a tragic episode in Jewish history.

"We are deeply disturbed" by her commentary, president Simon Greer said in a statement today. "Unless someone has been accusing Ms. Palin of killing Christian babies and making matzoh from their blood, her use of the term is totally out of line."

The National Jewish Democratic Council called the video a step in the wrong direction.

"This is of course a particularly heinous term for American Jews, given that the repeated fiction of blood libels are directly responsible for the murder of so many Jews across centuries — and given that blood libels are so directly intertwined with deeply ingrained anti-Semitism around the globe, even today," it said in a statement.

Now, after Palin has been the target of a bunch of irrational hate speech in the wake of the Tucson shootings, she is suddenly and magically transformed once AGAIN into a purveyor of hate by using two words, "blood libel" (which seems like a perfect description of the irrational hatred directed toward her to me).

Liberal groups are naturally thrilled with this fresh cow manure being flung at Palin:

"The last thing the country needs now is for the rhetoric in the wake of this tragedy to return to where it was before," liberal group J Street said in a statement. "We hope that Governor Palin will recognize, when it is brought to her attention, that the term 'blood libel' brings back painful echoes of a very dark time in our communal history when Jews were falsely accused of committing heinous deeds."

I didn't realize the words "blood libel" were stricken from the English language, or that they had only one possible context. I must have missed the memo. I"m also beginning to realize what liberals mean when they refer to "hate speech". Hate speech to liberals is when words come out of a conservative's mouth. It doesn't much matter what the words are, as long as they are somewhere in the political sphere. It doesn't much matter because whatever the words are, liberals will magically transform them into "hate speech", just like they did with Palin.

There is a voice of reason crying out against the Palin Derangement Syndrome universe, and it comes from Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz:

"There is nothing improper and certainly nothing anti-Semitic in Sarah Palin using the term to characterize what she reasonably believes are false accusations that her words or images may have caused a mentally disturbed individual to kill and maim."

Thank you, professor. Now, of course, the media wants to know WHY Palin chose those two words to use, as if it freaking matters. If I was her, I'd simply say, "because they fit".

Our media. Gotta love 'em. They lament the tone of our political rhetoric in the wake of the Tucson shootings, while at the very same time they are stirring things up against Palin based upon nothing. And here I thought Palin Derangement Syndrome was going to end after the 2008 election. Boy, was I wrong.

Update – Jennifer Epstein of Politico has taken Palin Derangement Syndrome to the next level with this:

Sarah Palin’s use of the charged term “blood libel” may not have been an accidental blunder, but a deliberate “‘dog whistle” appeal to her evangelical Christian supporters for whom the expression has meaning, commentators and others are saying.

The fact-free parade continues. Ooh, look at the straw men, mommy !

The following video has MSNBC host Ed Schultz complaining about Rush Limbaugh's use of the race card directed at Democrats:

Where do I even start ? First, we have Schultz talking about restoring decency on the airwaves after he just called Limbaugh "the Drugster." Then he rails against Limbaugh using the race card after MSNBC has used the race card against the Tea Party movement nonstop for nearly two years. MSNBC plays the race card against Republicans every single chance they get, and Schultz plays the race card against Republicans in this very segment where he's complaining about Limbaugh playing the race card. Then Schultz introduces the professional race card player Al Sharpton to complain about Limbaugh playing the race card. What, was Sharpton upset that Limbaugh encroached onto Sharpton's turf ? Then Schultz calls for a McCarthyist "decency law" to stop those like Limbaugh. Then Sheila Jackson Lee calls for a return of the Fairness Doctrine (to get people like Limbaugh off the air, but not the "decent" folks over at MSNBC, of course). Insanity reigns supreme.

MSNBC calling for decency on the airwaves, calling for an end to usage of the race card ??? Give me a major break, already. MSNBC's nighttime hosts make their living by being indecent. This is a case of double standards gone wild, a prime example of MSNBC types being able to dish it out, but not being able to take it. It's not so much fun when the shoe is on the other foot, is it, liberals ? It's not so much fun when somebody calls your people racists, is it, you clueless hypocrites ? When the race card is played against Democrats, pot-calling-the-kettle-black folks like Ed Schultz start whining for censorship. Blow it out your tailpipe, Schultz. Once you start holding yourself to the same standards of decency to which you try to hold your political opponents, then we can talk about decency. Until then, you only make us all laugh at your phony concern.

For those not familiar with the "decency" of Ed Schultz, here's a video of him calling conservatives "the forces of evil." Here's a video where the libnut Schultz says Republicans want you dead, that Republicans like it when you die. That was about healthcare reform. Here's Schultz calling Republicans "hate merchants." I could go on and on.

"Decency" has no place in the realm of Ed Schultz. He pushes hatred, and then has a hissy fit when he thinks Rush Limbaugh is using the same tactics. What an ass.

This is no defense of Limbaugh. If anything, I see Limbaugh and Schultz as being similiar persons (though Schultz seems far more unstable), willing to say anything for their "side." But what I don't see is Limbaugh or any other conservative trying to shut down the other side's speech. Such glaring hypocrisy comes almost exclusively from the left, which should clue us all in to what they are really about. The answer to crazy speech isn't censorship. The answer to it is MORE SPEECH.

Truth be told, Schultz wants to BE a left-wing version of Limbaugh. He even threatened to burn down MSNBC when he thought they weren't promoting his crazy show enough, saying "I'm going to torch this ****ing place." Reportedly, MSNBC officials said they'd fire him if he did anything like that again, and Schultz broke down crying.

I leave you with this final video of the "decency" of Ed Schultz:

"Shove those [Republican] bastards right into the dirt hole !!!" says the "decent" Ed Schultz. Umm-hmmm. Lecture me again about decency, Ed. You tool.

Followup to last post – MSNBC is reinstating Keith Olbermann on tuesday. Because my blogger pal the Reverend blamed Olbermann's suspension on Fox News (I'm not kidding)), be sure to check the Reverend's blog, where he should be thanking Fox News for getting Olby back on the air.

In related failure news, Nancy Pelosi is running for House minority leader. Advice for House Democrats – get a clue and choose someone more popular, capable, and honest, like Maxine Waters (D-CA) or Charlie Rangel (D-NY)….only after their ethics trials are concluded, of course. Btw, Democrats, nice move scheduling those trials AFTER the elections. Maybe now the lame duck Dems will get their act together and pass the budget that was due two months ago, as well as deal with the expiring Bush tax cuts. With such integrity, not to mention their party-over-country attitude, it's hard to fathom how the Democrats lost so many elections last week. Or not.

Nancy Pelosi is echoing the almost universal sentiment coming from the liberal wing of the Democratic party to explain their election losses. These fools actually think it was their "messaging" that was the problem. Here's Pelosi, courtesy of Politico:

In a letter sent to fellow Democratic lawmakers Saturday, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi of California expresses confidence that she will be elected minority leader and calls for the party to “further modernize” and “communicate” the message that helped them win the House in 2006.

Her focus on message implies that Democrats lost at least 60 seats and the House because of a failure to communicate effectively about the agenda the party delivered rather than public disapproval of the policies. It’s an argument that may resonate well with House Democrats who blame the White House for not putting enough energy into honing and promoting public relations campaigns in support of major legislative items.

"In addition, we must build the capacity for effectively communicating our message of job creation and opportunity for all, while supporting our signature achievements of health care, Wall Street reform, and Social Security and Medicare," she wrote. "In the 2006 election with our ‘New Direction’ and ‘6 for 06’ message, we spoke with great clarity and unity — and we won. Now, we must further modernize not only that message but the way in which we communicate with constituents."

San Fran Nan still doesn't get it. It wasn't her "messaging" that was the problem. The problem was with the direction of the country under the leadership of Obama, Pelosi, and the Democrats. The country is drowning in debt and deficits, on an unsustainable path towards bankruptcy, and Pelosi thinks she can "message" her way out of that. Not a chance. The country needs a new direction right now, and Pelosi and company will not provide it. On second thought Democrats, please DO make Pelosi the House minority leader. That way, in 2012 your party will be even further in the dumper than you are already. The Democrats long-held strategy of buying votes via government largesse (read: other people's money) is coming apart at the seams. Those big government chickens FDR set in motion so long ago are finally coming home to roost. There's no way to tax and spend our way out of this mess. That path is a dead end leading to a brick wall. If you don't believe me, ask Europe.

There's another silly meme being pushed by liberals regarding the Democrats election losses. These libs are claiming the problem was – Obama just wasn't liberal enough (what did they want, a Russian Revolution ?). To clear that up, I offer Obama's post-election phone call to the left-wing, George Soros funded group, Moveon.org:

Notice how Obama refers to himself and Moveon.org as "we," leaving no doubt as to where his allegiances lie. It's full-speed ahead with the liberal agenda, but now Obama will have to go through a GOP-led House to implement it. Good luck, Mr. President. You'll need it.

When I first heard MSNBC had suspended Keith Olbermann indefinitely for ethics violations because Olbermann donated some money to the political campaigns of Democrats, I thought I was reading a fake news story from the Onion News Network. This had to be a joke. When I realized it was real, I wondered – why is MSNBC suddenly concerned with Olbermann's ethics now, after all the ethics-free years Olby has already spent at MSNBC ? I thought perhaps MSNBC executives had watched MSNBC's unprofessional and biased election coverage tuesday night, in which MSNBC got hammered in the ratings as usual (Fox News was the highest rated station with 7 million viewers. MSNBC was in last place with 2 million), and decided maybe it was time to pull the plug on it's Olbermann-led masturbatory liberal nighttime funhouse.

Then I realized that wasn't it at all. The truth was something far more bizarre and Onionesque – MSNBC ACTUALLY BELIEVES OLBERMANN IS A JOURNALIST, and is trying to hold him to (lol) journalistic standards. Here is MSNBC's stated policy on it's "journalists" donating to political campaigns:

"MSNBC.com employees who take part in civic or other outside activities, including participation in political campaigns or public events such as speeches, marches and political rallies, or who publicly espouse controversial positions, may find that these activities jeopardize their standing as objective journalists. MSNBC.com employees should report any such potential conflicts in advance to, and obtain the prior approval of, the Editor in Chief or his designee.

"If a contribution, monetary or otherwise, to a candidate or group with a political or social agenda could create the appearance of a conflict of interest due to the employee’s responsibilities at MSNBC.com, the contribution must receive the prior approval of the section Executive Producer or Editor in Chief

Categorizing Olbermann as an "objective journalist" or worrying about his "appearance of a conflict of interest" is just too much for this blogger to bear. Despite Olbermann's own self-delusion that he is the second coming of Edward R. Murrow, everyone else knows the words "objective" and "journalist" have no relationship whatsoever to Olbermann's nightly MSNBC left-wingathon. Olbermann's SOLE raison d'etre at MSNBC is to beat down conservatives and raise up liberals. He is the very antithesis of "objective." The same is true of ALL his fellow nighttime MSNBC cohorts, so where is this treasured objectivity and journalistic integrity of which MSNBC executives speak ? It's a joke.

Let's use the example of tuesday night's election coverage. MSNBC's coverage consisted of wall-to-wall liberals, from Olbermann to Rachel Maddow to Lawrence O'Donnell to Ed Schultz to Chris Matthews to Eugene Robinson. MSNBC's coverage represented the full spectrum of intellectual political diversity, ranging from left-wing to far left-wing. I hope I'm not leaving any lefties out, but lefty commentary (if you can even call it commentary) was all you heard at MSNBC on election night. Fox News, on the other hand, (who is soooo biased according to MSNBC), offered analysis from across the political spectrum. Fox handed the reins to daytime anchors Megyn Kelly and Brett Baier, and had on a variety of Democrat and liberal commentors, from Alan Colmes to Bob Beckel to Doug Schoen to Juan Williams to Kirsten Powers and others. Fox News was fair and balanced. MSNBC aired a liberal wall-of-sound with segments like Lawrence O'Donnell saying Rand Paul's election to the Senate from Kentucky could trigger a global financial collapse and armageddon. If you think I'm kidding, watch the video at the above link. I'm not kidding. Olbermann compared the Republican victory to a toxic substance that would bore down and eat away the earth's core. Chris Matthews was openly mocking GOP Rep. Michelle Bachmann on-air as the rest of the juvenile MSNBC ass-clowns snickered in the background. Maddow objected to Bachmann's inference that Matthews and MSNBC were in the tank for Obama (say it ain't so !!!!!), because while Matthews was mocking Bachmann and asking her repeatedly if she was in a trance, Bachmann mocked him right back, saying that the tingle in Matthews' leg probably wasn't so strong on a night of GOP victories. The bias of MSNBC's election coverage was absolute, as is the bias of MSNBC's political coverage every other night.

Thus, MSNBC suspending Olbermann for the appearance of a conflict of interest over a few campaign donations is ludicrous. Everyone in America already knows Olby is in the tank for liberals. It's not exactly a secret. Here's the kicker – MSNBC offered Olby's job to liberal Chris Hayes, editor of the left-wing Nation magazine. They picked another in-the-tank lefty to replace an in-the-tank lefty. Love that "objective journalistic integrity" over at MSNBC. Then MSNBC found out Hayes had also donated to the campaigns of Democrats, and they withdrew the offer. It's so weird. MSNBC hires people who ARE openly partisan and biased….but they don't want those same people to SEEM partisan and biased by giving money to Democrats. The substance of it's commentators doesn't matter to MSNBC, but the appearance does matter. It's absurd. MSNBC should dispense with the pretense, just admit what they are, and get on with it. That's what they'd do if they had any, um,…integrity.

Just in case Olby the journalistic giant (ass) doesn't return, here's a very brief tribute. I'd give him a longer tribute, but he doesn't deserve one:

Yeah, good night and good luck. Olby thinks that catchphrase makes him exactly like his hero Murrow, which is just one more thing for Olbermann to be wrong about. Don't let the door hit you in the backside, you imperious, smug, self-righteous hack.

View Clueless - During a discussion of the Juan Williams firing by NPR, one of the ladies on The View, Joy Behar, defended NPR by saying NPR has been "vetted by objective Media Matters types." I kid you not. Behar's statement is equivalent to saying "liberals agree that liberals are objective." Media Matters is lots of things, but "objective" is not one of them. You may remember from my last post that George Soros just gave Media Matters a million bucks to counter Fox News, not to be "objective." Media Matters doesn't even describe themselves as being objective. They define themselves as a “progressive research and information center dedicated to comprehensively monitoring, analyzing, and correcting conservative misinformation in the U.S. media.” Media Matters certainly is dedicated to smearing conservatives, even if they have to lie to accomplish it. I bestow upon Joy Behar the Get A Clue award.
===
Speaking of George Soros, The Wall Street Journal ran an op-ed by Soros which calls for the legalization of marijuana. Much as I might despise the source, the left-wing puppetmaster makes some good points on the subject. Creating organized criminals in the form of drug cartels and filling our prisons with drug offenders are just a few of the negative side effects of marijuana prohibition. Also, anyone in this country who wants to smoke marijuana can still smoke it, regardless of the law. It's time to try something different. The decades long war on drugs has been a complete failure.
===
President Obama, the former post-partisan, post-racial unifier (alleged), has now become a rabid, partisan race divider. Trying to get out the Latino vote, the Prez said the following:

“If Latinos sit out the election instead of saying, ‘We’re going to punish our enemies and we’re gonna reward our friends who stand with us on issues that are important to us,’ if they don’t see that kind of upsurge in voting in this election, then I think it’s going to be harder and that’s why I think it’s so important that people focus on voting on November 2.”

Now Americans who want to stem the tide of illegal immigration are the "enemies" of Latino people ? With all due respect, Mr. President, go screw yourself. Every sovereign nation in the world has the right to secure it's borders, and America is no exception. It doesn't mean we are anyone's "enemies." It means we have the right to national security. Boy, when Democrats get desperate, things get real ugly. Hope and change my aunt Fanny.
===
Finally, for the historical record I offer the following video. This is Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) on her very first day as Speaker Of The House, January 4th, 2007. Let's see if Pelosi has lived up to her promise from that day:

Pelosi promised no new debt. Let's see….on the day Pelosi and the Democrats took over Congress, the federal debt was $8.67 trillion. Today, it is $13.67 trillion. Pelosi and friends have run up nearly $5 trillion in additional debt in less than four years on the job, an unprecedented amount. Given this, why should we re-elect the Democrats to lead Congress, unless we have some sort of death wish ??? The Democrats didn't just fail. They failed SPECTACULARLY. If Congress was an airship, Pelosi's reign has been the Hindenburg, crashing and burning. Yet, liberals want us to fear the Tea Party. Go figure. What could the Tea Partiers do worse than Pelosi ? Nuke Chicago, or what ?

When young Schwartz Gyorgy was collaborating with the National Socialist German Worker's Party in the 1940's, he viewed his actions as merely utilitarian. As Gyorgy helped the National Socialists, or Nazis for short, confiscate the property of Jews, he said he felt no sense of guilt. Gyorgy, who now goes by the name George Soros, said if he hadn't helped the Nazis purify the country, someone else surely would have. Young Soros took property from the Jews and profited from it because he could, end of story. By his own admission, he doesn't lose a wink of sleep over his actions.

A little later in life, Soros the wealthy hedge fund investor saw that the British pound needed to be devalued, so he bought up billions of dollars of British sterling and made other financial moves to profit from the coming devaluation. Soros became known as The Man Who Broke The Bank Of England for those moves. He helped crash the British economy because he could, end of story. He didn't lose a wink of sleep over his actions.

These days, Soros, who has said he "fancied himself some kind of God" is very interested in American politics. He wants to devalue the American dollar and redistribute American wealth to other countries, among many other things. He donates tens of millions of dollars to left-wing media outlets in this country, such as Moveon.org, ThinkProgress, Center For American Progress, Media Matters, etc. He does that because he can, end of story. A few days ago, Soros gave Media Matters a million bucks to target Fox News. Here's what Soros said about that donation:

Despite repeated assertions to the contrary by various Fox News commentators, I have not to date been a funder of Media Matters. However, in view of recent evidence suggesting that the incendiary rhetoric of Fox News hosts may incite violence, I have now decided to support the organization. Media Matters is one of the few groups that attempts to hold Fox News accountable for the false and misleading information they so often broadcast. I am supporting Media Matters in an effort to more widely publicize the challenge Fox News poses to civil and informed discourse in our democracy.

Soros is being disingenuous when he says he has not donated to Media Matters previously. He has not donated money directly to Media Matters before now, but as Politico notes, Media Matters “has received funding from or formed partnerships with several groups that Soros funds. These include the Tides Foundation, Democracy Alliance, Moveon.org and the Center for American Progress.” George Soros is the big money behind the left-wing media in this country. MSNBC is the television outlet for that media. Keith Olbermann, Rachel Maddow, and company air the "news" that the Soros-funded media puts out on the internet.

A few days ago, George Soros, the self-described Fox News hater, donated $1.8 million to National Public Radio (NPR). Yesterday, NPR fired Juan Williams, who had been an NPR news analyst for 10 years, but who, more importantly, is a regular guest on Fox News' The O'Reilly Factor. The lefty Soros-NPR cabal doesn't like their people going on Fox News, so they manufactured a reason to fire him. Soros wants to purify NPR and the rest of the media just as he helped the Nazis purify Germany. NPR's excuse to fire Williams was a comment he made on Fox News about getting nervous when he sees a Muslim dressed in Muslim garb getting on an airplane, a view I imagine is shared by a few hundred million other Americans after 9/11 and subsequent attempts by Muslim jihadists to bring down planes. It isn't bigotry to have such a thought. I've had the same thought myself in airports. It's human nature, the survival instinct. While we don't want to be insensitive, we don't want to die in a fiery airplane crash either. NPR fired Juan Williams for being a human being with an opinion. That's their official line, anyway. Here's NPR President and CEO George Soros Vivian Schiller, according to Sfexaminer.com:

NPR chief executive Vivian Schiller is defending the firing of news analyst Juan Williams after his comments on the Fox News Channel, saying his feelings about Muslims are between him and "his psychiatrist or his publicist."

Schiller spoke Thursday at the Atlanta Press Club. She said Williams' firing is not a reflection of his comments that he gets nervous when he sees people in Muslim garb on an airplane.

She says she has no problem with people taking controversial positions, but that such opinions should not come from NPR reporters or news analysts.

So, NPR news analysts should not offer opinions, eh ? Hmmm. Is it even possible to "analyze" the news without offering an opinion ? I'm dubious. The real truth, however, is that NPR's people offer opinions ALL THE TIME. Here are a few examples:

From calling Tea Party members “Tea Baggers,” to saying that "the evaporation of 4 million" Christians would leave the world a better place, to suggesting that God could give former Sen. Jesse Helms or his family AIDS from a blood transfusion, NPR's personalities have said some pretty un-PC things in the past. A look at the record reveals no shortage of intolerant statements and unbalanced segments on the publicly sponsored network's airwaves.

- NPR's Terry Gross hosted Princeton professor Sean Wilentz, who has written that President George W. Bush practiced "a radicalized version of Reaganism," Newsbusters' Tom Graham wrote. "Can you think of another time in American history when there have been as many people running for Congress who seem to be on the extreme?" Gross asked, according to Graham. "Not running for Congress, no," Wilentz replied. "I mean even back in the '50s."

NPR is fine with opinions, provided they are left-wing opinions. Why else do you think left-winger George Soros is giving them money ? In order to foster media balance ? Hardly. Soros is giving NPR money so NPR can step up it's efforts to attack conservatives.

Juan Williams knows the real reason he was fired:

Saying that he thinks NPR terminated his contract because "I appear on Fox," news analyst Juan Williams tonight continued to protest the decision by NPR executives to cut the organization's ties with him.

"I don't fit in their box. I'm not a predictable, black liberal," he told Fox News' Bill O'Reilly.

That's the bottom line. While Williams often does take liberal positions, he does not fall into the liberal loon category. He is not a lemming. He is a thoughtful and independent thinker, someone I enjoy hearing, even if I don't always agree with him. I'm not even going to entertain the notion that he is some sort of bigot, which is absurd. He most definitely is not. He has written books on the civil rights movement, not that he needs me to defend him.

Finally, isn't it about time we stop giving NPR, a partisan political group, federal funds ? Why should the taxpayers support that ? If the taxpayers were funding Fox News, I'm certain left-wingers would be protesting in the streets, so why do we tolerate funding liberal partisan groups ? It makes no sense to me.

When Rupert Murdoch's News Corp., which owns Fox News, made a $1 million donation to the Republican Governors Association, Democrats didn't like it. Nathan Daschle, the executive director of the Democratic Governors Association, said Fox News should issue a disclaimer:

"In the interest of some fairness and balance, I request that you add a formal disclaimer to your coverage any time any of your programs covers governors or gubernatorial races between now and Election Day," Daschle said, according to Kurtz.

To which a Fox spokesman replied: "Nathan's stunt has run its course. His 15 minutes are up. Time to leave the stage."

I say, fair enough. Let's have Fox News issue that disclaimer….as long as everyone else adheres to the same standard.

Here's how ABC, CBS, and NBC employees donated to candidates in 2008, according to data collected from OpenSecrets.org:

Senior executives, on-air personalities, producers, reporters, editors, writers and other self-identifying employees of ABC, CBS and NBC contributed more than $1 million to Democratic candidates and campaign committees in 2008, according to an analysis by The Examiner of data compiled by the Center for Responsive Politics.

The Democratic total of $1,020,816 was given by 1,160 employees of the three major broadcast television networks, with an average contribution of $880.

By contrast, only 193 of the employees contributed to Republican candidates and campaign committees, for a total of $142,863. The average Republican contribution was $744.

President Obama received 710 such contributions worth a total of $461,898, for an average contribution of $651 from the network employees. Republican presidential nominee Sen. John McCain received only 39 contributions totaling $26,926, for an average donation of $709.

With nearly 90% of their employees contributing to Democrats, I eagerly await the disclaimers of ABC, CBS, and NBC regarding their political coverage. Mainstream media bias is a two-way street, and most of the traffic favors the Democrats. Without Fox News, it would ALL favor the Democrats on television, and that's why I say Fox News is not only good for the political milieu, it is essential. We can't have much of a discussion in the marketplace of ideas when all those ideas are the same.

While I'm on the subject of bias disclaimers, the Washington Examiner mentioned this little fact in the article linked above:

OpenSecrets.org found that college professors were the most reliable Democratic contributors in the 2008 election

Uh-oh. I guess we better put up disclaimer signs at our universities too, warning incoming students that they are about to enter a left-wing indoctrination zone.

Think about this the next time some liberal tries to tell you how awful is the bias of Fox News. What they're really telling you is that they wish only THEIR opinions were being expressed favorably, which also explains why one of the first things socialist/communist/religious dictators do is ban and/or imprison media outlets that oppose them. It also explains why left-wingers moan about the advantage conservatives have in talk radio in this country and try to dream up ways to eliminate that advantage, while the same lefties have no problem whatsover with THEIR much larger advantage on television, in newspapers, and at college universities. There's nothing about fairness involved with those who want to bring back the Fairness Doctrine. It's all about controlling the narrative. It's all about power. The left can't wield it as effectively as they used to, and they hate that. That hate ends with the last refuge of the liberal. This occurs when the liberal fears he might lose the argument, especially if he is losing the argument in the public eye. That's when the liberal plays his trump card, his show-stopper, and calls his opponents bigots, even when those opponents are the overwhelming majority of the American people. That's how "tolerant" liberals are. They are only tolerant of those who think just like they do. The liberal version of tolerance is actually the very definition of intolerance - unwillingness or refusal to tolerate or respect contrary opinions or beliefs, persons of different races or backgrounds, etc.

And this fully explains why despicable liberal groups and individuals have attempted to falsely smear the Tea Party movement as racist since day one.

Liberals, after 8 years of complaining about President Bush running up the federal debt (as did I), and after 20+ years of complaining about President Reagan running up a relatively minor amount of debt (Obama ran up nearly as much debt in his first year as Reagan did in two full terms), now wholly embrace Democrats running up the debt at a pace unmatched in American history. Obama makes Bush look like an amateur debt runner-upper by comparison, but I see no outcry from liberals over this. Liberals have completely switched course, completely switched arguments. Now, they demonize Republicans for insisting additional federal spending be paid for (as demanded by the Democrats own PAYGO legislation, which liberals trumpet. Go figure). Somebody will have to explain this to me, because I can't make any sense of it whatsoever.

Liberals babble on about tax cuts for the rich or something, but that doesn't make much sense either. If the Bush tax cuts for the rich were reversed, it would only add around $50 billion per year in federal revenue (the amount is arguable. Could be less. Could be more). Reversing the Bush tax cuts would barely make a dent in our yearly trillion+ dollar deficits. Reversing the Bush tax cuts wouldn't even offset the additional federal spending and borrowing announced in the last week, not to mention that nearly all economists agree raising taxes during a recession is a really bad idea. History agrees, though Obama and his Democratic Superfriends do not. I call them Suprefriends because they have superhuman powers that normal people do not possess. For example, they can turn borrowing $1.5 trillion per year into a GOOD thing. Bush could NEVER have gotten away with that, being a mere mortal and (ick) Republican. The Superfriends can also pass PAYGO and then completely ignore it without generating so much as a peep of protest from the mainstream media. The Superfriends can even praise themselves for passing PAYGO months AFTER completely ignoring it, and the peepless media still doesn't peep. Instead, the media continues peeping about whether there might be a racist among the millions of Tea Party members. They've been peeping for, let's see, about 17 months over that one, because, you know, President Obama is black (well, half-black. Close enough, I guess). Maybe the Tea Partiers should come out with a statement saying they are only protesting Obama's white half. Maybe that would please the race-based liberal media's sensibilities.

But I digress. This post is supposed to be about spending money we don't have, which has become the preferred way of life for Obama and his Superfriends (Shazzam ! Responsibility gone !). Here are a couple weekly updates on the Superfriends Spend-a-Palooza Spectacular:

1) After decades of Congress ripping off the Social Security Trust Fund, Social Security finds itself in the red this year (I'm sure there's no connection there, lol. The Superfriends tell me there isn't, but still, I'm suspicious. I don't have superpowers, but I can add and subtract). Congress says it is going to dip into the $2.54 trillion SS Trust Fund to make up for a $41 billion SS payout shortage this year. Here's Allan Sloan of the Washington Post to explain how it will work:

This year's cash deficit, the first since the early 1980s and the biggest ever, means the government will have to borrow money to redeem some of the Treasury securities in the trust fund. Even at a time when Uncle Sam is borrowing $1.5 trillion a year to keep his checks from bouncing, $41 billion is real money.

Question: Golly gee, Mr. WaPo reporter, why would we have to borrow money to get the SS funds when there's $2.54 trillion in the Trust Fund ?

Answer: Because there isn't anything in the Trust Fund. Congress spent those funds long, long ago, you rubes. You've been swindled by your own government. Still want to hand your health care over to them ?

Thus, $41 billion is added to the deficit to coverup the SS scam.

(Note – Everyone should read and understand the information in the previous link about SS, especially those liberal folks who've been foolishly arguing with me about SS for years.)

2). A few weeks after Obama and his Superfriends passed a financial regulation reform bill that they laughably claimed would prevent future bailouts, they passed….more bailouts. This time it is $26.1 billion to bail out state workers and Medicaid. Obama said the bill will save the jobs of 300,000 teachers and other government workers, such as police officers. Unlike previous Dem bills, this bill is actually paid for (golf clap), because the Democrats didn't have enough votes in the Senate to pass it without paying for it, as they desired. Their Shazzam ! Responsibility gone ! magic didn't work this time. They needed a couple Republican votes. Thus, the Dems paid for the funding by closing tax loopholes on multinational corporations (raising taxes) and….cutting funding for food stamps ??? I have to admit, this took me by surprise. I can think of a hundred ways to cut government spending, but cutting the food stamp program never occurred to me. The Dems are taking from the poor to give to the middle class. Specifically, they are giving to the unions.

I always wonder why, instead of bailing out the public employees unions, we can't cut some of their pay and/or benefits to avoid the layoffs. After all, they work for us, the taxpayers, and public employees already earn twice as much as private sector employees. Why should we bail them out ? The entire setup is nothing more than the poorer private sector folks bailing out the wealthier public sector folks, the same as with cutting food stamps. It's perverse.

But instead of cutting public employee pay back a little to keep teachers on the job, the government plays the same old tune. They scare the hell out of the public by threatening to lay off a bunch of teachers and police officers, and then the "benevolent" government pretends they are coming to the rescue, usually by raising taxes. What they are really doing is catering to the Democratic base, the public employees unions, at the expense of other (usually poorer) taxpayers. This partially explains why American education costs are skyrocketing, without a corresponding improvement in the quality of that education. One way or another, the government still works it's Shazzam ! Responsibility gone ! magic on us…and we sit back and take it like the marks we are.

If there's any bright side…november isn't that far away.

When Shirley Sherrod, a black woman, was fired by the government (not by Fox News or Andrew Breitbart), I thought she got a raw deal. She was fired because the cowardly government feared what was contained in Breitbart's initial video, which allegedly showed Sherrod making racist statements to an NAACP crowd. The government feared what Fox News would say about that video, coming on the heels of the NAACP's grandstanding resolution condemning alleged racism in the Tea Party movement. The NAACP's resolution was itself racist, because it attempted to paint a grassroots movement of millions of Americans seeking fiscal sanity and Constitutional liberty as nothing more than a bunch of bigots. The cowardly NAACP also condemned Sherrod initially, even though Sherrod's allegedly racist comments were made IN FRONT OF THE NAACP. Go figure that one out.

When Sherrod was fired by the government. she was forced to pull her car off the road and resign over the phone immediately, without being able to offer any defense of her actions. That conversation went as follows:

Sherrod told CNN that the White House urged her to resign Monday afternoon after the video clip surfaced.

"They harassed me," she said. "I got three calls from the White House. At one point they asked me to pull over to the side of the road and do it because you are going to be on Glenn Beck tonight."

Sherrod said the White House calls came from Cheryl Cook, USDA deputy undersecretary for rural development. "The administration was not interested in hearing the truth. They didn't want to hear the truth."

Sherrod wasn't on Glenn Beck that night. The first segment Fox News did on her was on The O'Reilly Factor at 8pm EST. By the time that segment aired (though it was taped a few hours earlier), Sherrod had already been canned. In that segment, Fox host Bill O'Reilly did say Sherrod should be fired for her racist statements. He has since apologized, after discovering the full context of Sherrod's NAACP speech, which showed Sherrod redemptively saying she came to realize she should not judge people by the color of their skin. The first segment Glenn Beck did on Sherrod was on tuesday, when Beck SUPPORTED her and came out against her being fired without being able to tell her side of the story.

So, who was to blame here ?…

Breitbart ? Yes. He aired a video without knowing the full context, which started this whole thing.

Government ? Hell yes. They are the ones who fired Sherrod without cause and without a hearing.

Fox News ? Yes. They aired the Breitbart video without properly vetting it, and some of their hosts jumped to conclusions (others, like Beck, did not).

NAACP ? Yes. They had the same knee-jerk reaction to the Breitbart video as the government and Fox News did.

Now, everybody has recanted and apologized for jumping to conclusions about Shirley Sherrod (though I'm not sure if Breitbart the instigator has apologized), and she is getting her job back, or getting a new job.

So, all is well now, correct ? The wrong has been righted.

No, it's never that simple. Not when politics is involved. When politics is involved, an edge must be gained. The nature of that edge, from the liberal perspective, is that Fox News must be cast as racists, which by extension casts all conservatives as racists in liberal minds. That edge is illustrated in the recent words of none other than Shirley Sherrod, the black woman who was fired without cause or a hearing by a DEMOCRATIC administration. Here's Sherrod talking to Media Matters:

“When you look at their reporting, this is just another way of seeing that they are (racist),” Sherrod told me about Fox in a lengthy interview Tuesday night. “But I have seen that before now. I saw their reporting as biased during the Bush Administration and the Clinton Administration.”

She said Fox showed no professionalism in continuing to bother her for an interview, but failing to correct their coverage.

“I think they should but they won’t. They intended exactly what they did. They were looking for the result they got yesterday,” she said of Fox. “I am just a pawn. I was just here. They are after a bigger thing, they would love to take us back to where we were many years ago. Back to where black people were looking down, not looking white folks in the face, not being able to compete for a job out there and not be a whole person.”

Still, Fox continued to push for an interview with her, Sherrod said.

“It was unbelievable. I am refusing to be on there. They have been calling me and calling me. I have refused to do an interview because they are biased,” she explained. “I don’t think Fox News does it fairly. It is worse so now. I have sat and listened to the way they cover the news even before this administration and I saw what was going on.”

Sherrod said this situation has worsened her view of racism in media coverage.

“I think it is race. You think we have come a long way in terms of race relations in this country, but we keep going backwards,” she said. “We have become more racist. This was their doing, Breitbart put that together misrepresenting what I was saying and Fox carried it.”

Think about this. Sherrod says she won't talk to Fox News, who has made numerous requests to interview her, but at the same time she says Fox has it's facts wrong (which was true initially, just as the NAACP and the government had the facts wrong). Isn't that the whole reason she SHOULD have gone on Fox, to set the record straight ??? Not to mention that Sherrod did decide to talk to Media Matters, a known left-wing propaganda outfit. For Sherrod to say "we have become more racist" is obviously false, and for her to say Fox News "would love to take us back to where we were many years ago. Back to where black people were looking down, not looking white folks in the face, not being able to compete for a job out there and not be a whole person,” is just totally, off-the-wall, batshit crazy and outrageous. It's actually far worse than anything Fox News said about her.

Thus, we've come full circle back to the left-wing agenda, which is to cast conservatives as racists, whether they be in the Tea Party movement, at Fox News, or wherever. And now Shirley Sherrod, who thinks Fox News wants to re-institute slavery, Jim Crow laws, or some other claptrap, is a part of it. Sorry Shirley, but being treated unfairly for a day or two doesn't explain away statements like this. You are now engaging in the same kind of tactics the NAACP engaged in when it cast the Tea Party movement as racist (I still haven't heard an apology for THAT yet, btw. Fox News DID apologize for their mistake).

Being a white male fiscal conservative, I have no street cred in liberal eyes, because wild-eyed liberals all suspect I'm a big fat old racist too (they don't really think that. They just have to pretend they do. It's for the greater good, you see. Alinsky outlined the strategy long ago). So, instead of offering my opinion on the race card games being played by left wingers, I'm going to defer to Tea Party speaker Katrina Pierson, a black woman. This was her response to the NAACP's lousy resolution against the Tea Party movement:

The NAACP should only propose resolutions that they have exercised themselves. The Tea Party, having only been active for a year and half, is the only group being singled out for racism in today's society. There are races committed to the destruction of our entire nation and the Tea Party is being targeted as a threat. Perhaps it is a threat. Could it be that the 2008 election served a greater purpose? The existence of the NAACP, and others like it, are threatened by the existence of the Tea Party. The reality is that we colored people no longer require the assistance from other Negros for advancement in 2010. These groups run to the rescue of distressed brown people only when the media deems it newsworthy. Meanwhile, there are inner city black children who continue to grow up fatherless while sharing a neighborhood with stray bullets, drugs and a plethora of liquor stores on every corner. To my understanding of the "I Have a Dream" speech, Dr. King's intention was far from gang-banging and gangster rap. I don't believe that the true meaning of this nation's creed was to move black people from one form of slavery to another. The NAACP has been completely ineffective in my lifetime, and the lack of leadership in the black community has contributed to the ability of these groups to speak on behalf of the rest of us. The ignored and forgotten society that lives among the projects has been abandoned by the likes of NAACP. As well as with other groups and individuals that rode in the coat-tails of MLK, they are irrelevant but continue to feed off of the codependence that they have created among blacks for validation. They are Democrats who bow to a Democrat master today as they once did two hundred years ago. Once this is realized by the forgotten society, race in this country will be as irrelevant as those who thrive off of it. -Katrina Pierson

Thanks, Katrina. I think race is irrelevant too. It's a non-issue within the Tea Party movement, but the left wants to continue playing that race card forever. We aren't a "nation of cowards" on racial matters, as Attorney General Eric Holder once said. What we are is a nation divided along lines of people who either think – A) race does not matter (all men are created equal), or B) race should be used as a political weapon for advantage. I choose option A. I'll leave it for others to decide who the racists are.

There are some things I just can't take. One of those things is being preached to about the lack of media ethics by the most unethical, lying, pompous, arrogant, smarmy jerk-off ever to grace the boob tube. I'm referring, of course, to MSNBC's propagandistic hack toad, Keith Olbermann (Ubermoron). Watching five minutes of Olby's hate-filled, hypocritical, and imperious over-the-top smack makes me feel dirty. I feel the need to shower in order to remove his foul stench.

Ubermoron, who evidently has not an iota of self-awareness or shame, doesn't even realize that in his "special comment" rants against Fox News (or whichever conservatives he is calling evil racist terrorists that day), he could just as easily be talking about himself. He has engaged in absolutely every unethical act of which he accuses others.

This is glaringly apparent in his latest spew about the Shirley Sherrod situation. The hambone Ubermoron returned from his vacation (hopefully, he was resting comfortably at a mental hospital with a thorazine drip) to make the following exaggerated condemnations against those who rushed to judgement about Sherrod.

(I don't blame you if you can't stomach the entire clip. Three or four minutes of it should give you the bomb-throwing gist).

Visit msnbc.com for breaking news, world news, and news about the economy

Absolutely everything Ubermoron said about a lack of media ethics in this clip could also be said of Keith Ubermoron.

Let's cut directly to the chase. Has Ubermoron ever taken any conservative words out of context and twisted them into meaning something other than what was actually intended ??? You're damn skippy. He does it routinely, and he does it intentionally. Here's but one small example out of a boatload. Google 'Olbermann lies' and you will find PLENTY more examples:

Keith Olbermann IS what Keith Olbermann condemns.

At the same time he condemns the right wingers, the ThinkProgress phony Tea Party racism tape has been exposed, and the Journolist reporters have been exposed (see my previous post). The lying scum assasin known as Ubermoron doesn't even MENTION these example of unethical media actions (and tellingly, neither does the rest of the mainstream media, speaking of ethics). No, no. That would be inconvenient to the phony partisan bilge he's trying to shove down the gullible throats of his lemming audience (which, fortunately, is relatively small). Instead, he uses Breitbart to condemn everything the conservative media has ever said, everything they have ever done. He takes everything way too far, as he always does. Ubermoron has been calling the Tea Party racist since it's inception. He calls them fascists, compares them to the KKK, Al Qaeda, Hamas, and Hezbollah. He phonies up charges of Tea Party violence. I'd compare Olbermann to a DailyKos diarist, but he actually IS a Kos diarist, which should clue you into his game right there.

The egoistic turd known as Keith Olbermann is no panacea for the media's lack of ethics. He is the embodiment of that lack of ethics.

And that's my "special comment." Good night, and good luck. You'll need it if you believe in Keith Olbermann.

An online meeting place for liberal alleged journalists and academics is called, not surprisingly, Journolist. The people over at Tucker Carlson's website, Daily Caller, have acquired the archives of Journolist, and the content of those archives gives us a glimpse into the mindset of the liberal media. It ain't pretty. In fact, it's downright ugly. The alleged reporters on Journolist come from Time, Politico, the Huffington Post, the Baltimore Sun, the Guardian, Salon, the New Republic, the Nation, the Washington Independent, etc. They come from pretty much the whole range of the liberal media.

Daily Caller has only begun to release the Journolist content. In it's first release, Daily Caller showed how the media conspired to kill stories about the hate-filled Reverend Wright in 2008 in order to protect candidate Barack Obama:

The crisis reached a howling pitch in mid-April, 2008, at an ABC News debate moderated by Charlie Gibson and George Stephanopoulos. Gibson asked Obama why it had taken him so long – nearly a year since Wright’s remarks became public – to dissociate himself from them. Stephanopoulos asked, “Do you think Reverend Wright loves America as much as you do?”

Watching this all at home were members of Journolist, a listserv comprised of several hundred liberal journalists, as well as like-minded professors and activists. The tough questioning from the ABC anchors left many of them outraged. “George [Stephanopoulos],” fumed Richard Kim of the Nation, is “being a disgusting little rat snake.”

Gibson and Stephanopoulos are Democrat-friendly media types, to say the least, but still, the "journalists" at Journolist didn't like their candidate Obama being asked any tough questions. No way. Who the hell did Gibson and Stephapoulos think they were interviewing, Sarah Palin or some other GOP'er ? Obama was only supposed to get softball questions, and prying into his background was definitely verboten. After all, he was only trying to become President Of The United States. There was no reason for America to know anything about his background. For that matter, we still don't know that much about him.

The Journolisters started strategizing:

In one instance, Spencer Ackerman of the Washington Independent urged his colleagues to deflect attention from Obama’s relationship with Wright by changing the subject. Pick one of Obama’s conservative critics, Ackerman wrote, “Fred Barnes, Karl Rove, who cares — and call them racists.”

Other Journolisters disagreed with Ackerman's 'pick any conservative and call them a racist' strategy, but tellingly, NOT ONE DISAGREED ON THE GROUNDS THAT IT'S DESPICABLE TO FALSELY ACCUSE SOMEONE OF BEING A RACIST. Instead, some Journolisters disagreed because they thought the strategy might backfire on Obama. Journalistic principles and integrity was a non-issue. They were all on board with falsely smearing a conservative, any conservative. It was just a question of whether it would work or not. Lately, it seems pretty obvious the liberal media has concluded that falsely calling conservatives racists is a GREAT idea and will work just fine. They've been at it non-stop for well over a year.

All the Journolisters did agree that ABC must be stopped (from vetting Obama):

Michael Tomasky, a writer for the Guardian, also tried to rally his fellow members of Journolist: “Listen folks–in my opinion, we all have to do what we can to kill ABC and this idiocy in whatever venues we have. This isn’t about defending Obama. This is about how the [mainstream media] kills any chance of discourse that actually serves the people.”

Of course, it absolutely was about defending Obama. Did you ever hear the liberal media complain about any questions that were asked of Palin, or the army of media that descended on Wasilla, Alaska to rip through every shred of Palin's life ? Nope. Nothing was out-of-bounds regarding Palin, and the Journolisters were the attack dogs. What the Journolisters engage in has nothing to do with journalism, and everything to do with advocacy at ALL costs.

The Journolisters decided to write a letter to protest against the media asking…Obama…questions (er, isn't that what the media is supposed to do ?):

The members began collaborating on their open letter. Jonathan Stein of Mother Jones rejected an early draft, saying, “I’d say too short. In my opinion, it doesn’t go far enough in highlighting the inanity of some of [Gibson's] and [Stephanopoulos’s] questions. And it doesn’t point out their factual inaccuracies …Our friends at Media Matters probably have tons of experience with this sort of thing, if we want their input.”

I certainly agree that Media Matters has tons of experience in that sort of thing, which helps explain why a former Media Matters employee who now works at another liberal propaganda site, ThinkProgress, has created a fraudulent video that falsely accused the Tea Party of promoting racism. ThinkProgress manufactured another fake Tea Party racism story a few days later.

Daily Caller wrote another article about the sweethearts over at Journolist. In this story, the freedom-of-the-press-loving Journolisters advocated government censorship of Fox News:

“I am genuinely scared” of Fox, wrote Guardian columnist Daniel Davies, because it “shows you that a genuinely shameless and unethical media organisation *cannot* be controlled by any form of peer pressure or self-regulation, and nor can it be successfully cold-shouldered or ostracised. In order to have even a semblance of control, you need a tough legal framework.” Davies, a Brit, frequently argued the United States needed stricter libel laws.

Jonathan Zasloff, a law professor at UCLA, suggested that the federal government simply yank Fox off the air. “Do you really want the political parties/white house picking which media operations are news operations and which are a less respectable hybrid of news and political advocacy?”

But Zasloff stuck to his position. “I think that they are doing that anyway; they leak to whom they want to for political purposes,” he wrote. “If this means that some White House reporters don’t get a press pass for the press secretary’s daily briefing and that this means that they actually have to, you know, do some reporting and analysis instead of repeating press releases, then I’ll take that risk.”

Scherer seemed alarmed [thank god someone was alarmed]. “So we would have press briefings in which only media organizations that are deemed by the briefer to be acceptable are invited to attend?”

John Judis, a senior editor at the New Republic, came down on Zasloff’s side, the side of censorship. “Pre-Fox,” he wrote, “I’d say Scherer’s questions made sense as a question of principle. Now it is only tactical.”

To the Journolisters, freedom of the press isn't a constitutionally protected right, it's just a tactic. Censorship is fine with them if it furthers their goals. Such decent Americans, this bunch. And don't even get me started on these Journolist scumbags referring to Fox News as "unethical" and "shameless." If that ain't the pot calling the kettle black, I don't know what is.

The compassionate Journolisters also talked about how they'd like Rush Limbaugh to have a heart attack so they could stand by and watch him die. This is sweet:

If you were in the presence of a man having a heart attack, how would you respond? As he clutched his chest in desperation and pain, would you call 911? Would you try to save him from dying? Of course you would.

But if that man was Rush Limbaugh, and you were Sarah Spitz, a producer for National Public Radio, that isn’t what you’d do at all.

In a post to the list-serv Journolist, an online meeting place for liberal journalists, Spitz wrote that she would “Laugh loudly like a maniac and watch his eyes bug out” as Limbaugh writhed in torment.

In boasting that she would gleefully watch a man die in front of her eyes, Spitz seemed to shock even herself. “I never knew I had this much hate in me,” she wrote. “But he deserves it.” [Oh honey, I've known for a looong time how much hate there is in you folks].

Spitz’s hatred for Limbaugh seems intemperate, even imbalanced. On Journolist, where conservatives are regarded not as opponents but as enemies, it barely raised an eyebrow.

The Tea Party movement was also vilified. I know, what a shocker:

In the summer of 2009, agitated citizens from across the country flocked to town hall meetings to berate lawmakers who had declared support for President Obama’s health care bill. For most people, the protests seemed like an exercise in participatory democracy, rowdy as some of them became.

On Journolist, the question was whether the protestors were garden-variety fascists or actual Nazis.

“You know, at the risk of violating Godwin’s law, is anyone starting to see parallels here between the teabaggers and their tactics and the rise of the Brownshirts?” asked Bloomberg’s Ryan Donmoyer. “Esp. Now that it’s getting violent? Reminds me of the Beer Hall fracases of the 1920s.”

Richard Yeselson, a researcher for an organized labor group who also writes for liberal magazines, agreed. “They want a deficit driven militarist/heterosexist/herrenvolk state,” Yeselson wrote. “This is core of the Bush/Cheney base transmorgrified into an even more explicitly racialized/anti-cosmopolitan constituency. Why? Um, because the president is a black guy named Barack Hussein Obama. But it’s all the same old nuts in the same old bins with some new labels: the gun nuts, the anti tax nuts, the religious nuts, the homophobes, the anti-feminists, the anti-abortion lunatics, the racist/confederate crackpots, the anti-immigration whackos (who feel Bush betrayed them) the pathological government haters (which subsumes some of the othercategories, like the gun nuts and the anti-tax nuts).”

“I’m not saying these guys are capital F-fascists,” added blogger Lindsay Beyerstein, “but they don’t want limited government. Their desired end looks more like a corporate state than a rugged individualist paradise. The rank and file wants a state that will reach into the intimate of citizens when it comes to sex, reproductive freedom, censorship, and rampant incarceration in the name of law and order.”

Whew. Alinsky would be so proud. At least us Tea Partiers aren't "capital F-fascists." That's a relief. For a minute there, I thought they REALLY hated us.

It's about time Mirriam-Webster adds some new liberal definitions for the words 'racist' and 'Nazi' to it's dictionary, because to liberals those words now mean 'anyone who disagrees with liberals.' It's really nothing more than that. I can't even take this stuff seriously anymore. It's like watching a progressive disease, with an emphasis on the word 'progressive.'

Clearly, these are some…..Serious Journolists. Seriously demented, but serious nonetheless.

"Meanwhile, you're coming of age in a 24/7 media environment that bombards us with all kinds of content and exposes us to all kinds of arguments, some of which don't rank all that high on the truth meter. With iPods and iPads; Xboxes and PlayStations; information becomes a distraction, a diversion, a form of entertainment, rather than a tool of empowerment. All of this is not only putting new pressures on you; it is putting new pressures on our country and on our democracy." - President Obama, speaking at a Hampton University graduation ceremony.

Barack Obama is one brilliant guy. He knows better than the rest of us. He should not be questioned by bitter, clinging peons like me. We should just bask in the light of his profound wisdom. If Obama wants to give commencement speeches instead of dealing with the worst oil spill in history, we should just accept that he is doing the right thing (shut up liberals. If Bush was doing this, you'd be saying the exact same thing).

If The One says Playstations and iPods are threatening democracy, then, by God, Playstations and iPods are threatening democracy. This is his Word, and he saw that is was Good. Amen.

Uttered by lesser men, the President's statement might sound bufoonish, and the media would lambaste him for it (again, think Bush). I know I've never considered Xboxes and Playstations to be of particular political significance. I've also never considered the open information age to be a political threat, except to the politicians whose utterances don't, to quote Obama, "rank all that high on the truth meter." I also find it ironic that a President who was elected largely due to unexamined mainstream media adoration would turn around and bite the hand that fed him. I guess the Prez was for the ubiquitous media before he was against it.

In truth, it's really only the part of the media that questions Obama and his acolytes that Obama thinks "puts pressures…on our democracy." The President longs for the good old days, when the media consisted of three hundred Democrats and William F. Buckley. You know, the fair and balanced days before Fox News, the internet, and all those other threats to democracy. Back in those blissful times, you'd never even know that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) said the following yesterday:

While speaking at the Nation’s Catholic Community conference last week, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi pleaded with religious leaders to "instruct" their followers to support immigration reform, according to Fox News.

Pelosi, who is Catholic, told the group of sisters, priests and activists that the church will play an important in shaping the future political landscape.

"The cardinals, the archbishops, the bishops that come to me … say, ‘We want you to pass immigration reform,’ and I said, I want you to speak about it from the pulpit," Pelosi told the audience.

"Some [who] oppose immigration reform are sitting in those pews, and you have to tell them that this is a manifestation of our living the gospels," she added.

Hmmm. Here I thought liberals like Pelosi were FOR the idea of separation of church and state. Now I find that belief is subjective, and should only be applied when a true threat to democracy exists, like when there's a cross that hardly anybody ever sees in the middle of nowhere on public land in the Mojave desert. And now absolutely nobody will see that cross, because it was stolen in the middle of the night after a court ruled it could remain on federal land, where it has stood for seventy years. The culprit undoubtedly resides somewhere in the Tea Party movement. Can I get a big amen on that, liberals ?

Back before the "24/7 constant media environment that bombards us with content," to quote Obama again, we also might not know that ObamaCare was passed based upon lies. ObamaCare doesn't bend down the cost curve, as the President promised time and again, and now the CBO has found it will cost another $115 billion more than estimated. But what's another $115 billion when we're talking about spending trillions ? It's not like this country has any money issues or anything. Nope. We're all rolling in clover. Pay no attention to the 9.9% unemployment rate, or the $12.8 trillion debt, or the $1.5 trillion deficit, or the tsunami of unfunded entitlement liabilities, or nearly every state in the union running in the red. Forget all that. I don't think that's too high on Obama's truth meter.

Also forget that the Democrats are looking to spend $200 billion more by Memorial Day, all of it exempted from the Dems own PayGo (lol) rules. The only thing Obama and the Dems want you to think about is that Obama appointed that debt commission, at the same time he spends more money faster than any previous administration in the history of the country. Greece ain't got nothin' on us.

If only that 24/7 media would just keep quiet.

You see, before the constant barrage of media that Obama doesn't like, that Obama thinks "pressures….democracy," we might not know about a lot of this stuff.

And that's how the President would like it, because the one being pressured is HIM.

I haven't had time to generate a new post for nearly a week now, so I have a few different topics I want to comment upon briefly.
—
The other day I heard NBC news bemoaning the fact that Rep. David Obey (D-WI) will not seek re-election. NBC practically deified the guy in it's failed attempt at accurate reportage. I assume the rest of the non-Fox News teevee media did the same, being that the rest really ARE the same (Democrats). I'd like to add my two cents about Obey. He is the chairman of the House Appropriations Committee, and is therefore more responsible than any other Congressperson for the explosion in federal spending over the last years. He wrote the stimulus bill boondoggle, and was instrumental in constructing and passing ObamaCare, which will raise everyone's health insurance premiums, raise spending further, raise taxes, create a massive new entitlement, and insert the federal government between doctor and patient.

Btw, Obey said his only regret about the stimulus bill was that it wasn't LARGER. I'm not kidding.

People like Obey are the problem with Congress. Good riddance.
—
Barack Obama's presidential election victory has two definite positive aspects. First, it showed that African-Americans can win major elections in the United States, and second, 32 African Americans are running for Congress this year…as Republicans, according to the New York times. The Times claims this is the biggest black Republican surge since Reconstruction. I seriously doubt that, but I'm sure all liberal groups will come out publicly to celebrate the new-found diversity within the Republican party (that was sarcasm, in case my left-leaning readers missed it).
—
Speaking of Congress, guess who's ba-a-ack and running for Congress in Ohio ? Former Democrat James Traficant from Youngstown, who served nine terms in Congress before serving seven years in prison for bribery, tax evasion, and obstruction. This is just one more example of the "most ethical Congress in history," as Nancy Pelosi called her Democrat cronies after they took over from the "culture of corruption," which is how Nan described the former Republican-led Congress. Being a felon doesn't prohibit one from running for Congress. I guess the thinking is – without criminals being eligible, how could they possible fill all those Congressional seats ?
—
Here's the funniest thing I heard about all week.

The Phoenix Suns NBA basketball team donned jerseys emblazoned with the words 'Los Suns' to protest the new Arizona law targeting illegal immigrants. In addition to the incorrect grammar (the correct English-to-Spanish translation of 'The Suns' is 'Los Soles,') and in addition to the fact that Suns owner Robert Tarver, who supports the Suns protest, owns a number of banks which received $140 million in TARP bailout funds (if he really needed the money, maybe he should have sold the basketball team before grabbing taxpayer cash), the Washington Times made a great suggestion:

"[W]hile millionaire athletes become walking billboards for a political cause, the state of Arizona might want to review the terms of its relationship with the Suns. If Mr. Sarver wants to use his team to push a political agenda, perhaps citizens can push back. Imagine Phoenix residents channeling the spirits of Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. by turning up en masse to Suns games, sneaking in without tickets, demanding special services like free food and access to box seats, overtaxing arena security and ruining the game for the people with tickets. They can call it a celebration of diversity."

I love it. Let's see how the Suns owner would react to people crashing HIS gate. I'm certain his reaction would be quite different. I'm also wondering when Prez Obama, an NBA fan, is going to weigh in on how greedy those professional athletes are for making so much money. Maybe the Los Suns should redistribute THEIR wealth to the illegals. Let's see how long their protest lasts then.
—
I know how disappointed the Leftmedia was when the Times Square bomber turned out to be yet another Muslim jihadist, rather than the violent right-wing Tea Party nut the left has been dreaming about and masturbating over for better than a year now. NYC Mayor Michael Bloomberg, Fox News Democrat Bob Beckel, MSNBC's Contessa Brewer, and even Geraldo Rivera all salivated over the prospect of a potential white male Tea party Times Square bomber. A Daily Kos poll had 8% thinking it was a jihadist, and about 80% thinking it was a Tea Partier or a right-wing anti-Obama nut of some kind. That is some serious wishful thinking.

I commisserate, lefties. Your thin-skinned political correctness nerves must be getting very frayed by now with the complete absence of Tea Party violence, especially when we are witnessing one violent left-wing protest after another, both here and around the world. I wish the Left better luck in the future. Hopefully, an unhinged Tea Party affiliate will blow up an IRS building soon and kill hundreds of people so you left-wing pr*cks can feel all happy and righteous again (and yes, that was sarcasm too, mixed in with a heaping tablespoon of disgust).

I do commend our brilliant Homeland Security Secretary, Janet Napolitano, who made the following statement immediately after the Times Square bombing attempt. "We're treating it as if it could be a potential terrorist attack," said Secretary Master Of The Obvious. Gee, ya think ?

Finally, when Rep. Andre Carson (D-IN) was asked about the Tea Party movement, Carson, unfazed by reality, chose to fixate upon the "real" threat:

"I worked in homeland security. I'm from intelligence, and I'll tell you, one of the largest threats to our internal security — I mean terrorism has an Islamic face — but it really comes from racial supremacist groups. Its the kind of thing we keep a threat assessment on record [for]."

Notice how Carson sickeningly equates the Tea Party movement with white supremacist groups. Could he be a former….Reverend ? Also of interest is how Carson says the "real" threat doesn't come from jihadists. It's white people we need to worry about. This dude needs PC-ectomy surgery very, very soon.

(Note to liberals – I'm not saying true white supremacist groups don't need to be watched. They do, but the Tea Party movement is NOT one of those groups. Andre Carson is being racist by pretending it is).

Let me start by saying I agree with several things Obama has done recently – instituting an effort to secure loose nukes is great. Probably the single greatest threat to the USA and the world is a nuke falling into terrorist hands. Obama's move to start offshore oil drilling is a step forward. I supported his surge in Afghanistan (though I'm having second thoughts after Afghan President Hamid Karzai criticized American efforts. We can't possibly succeed without the support of the Afghan government). Obama took a small step forward on gay rights by requiring hospitals to allow patients to designate who can visit them during crucial moments. It no longer has to be a family member. The former policy discriminated against unmarried couples and gay couples who are not allowed to marry, and are therefore not recognized as family. Allowing unmarried and gay partners to visit their loved ones in the hospital is simply the right and humane thing to do. Kudos to the President for changing this longstanding and unfair policy.

But thursday, the President returned to what I termed "full-blown economic retard" mode a couple posts back. At a Democratic fundraiser in Miami, Obama said the following about the tax day Tea Party protests. From the Associated Press:

President Barack Obama said Thursday he's amused by the anti-tax tea party protests that have been taking place around Tax Day. Obama told a fundraiser in Miami that he's cut taxes, contrary to the claims of protesters.

"You would think they'd be saying thank you," he said.

At that, many in the crowd at the Adrienne Arsht Center for the Performing Arts stood and yelled, "Thank you!"

The Democrats at Obama's fundraiser may have bought into this schlock, but anyone with an ounce of intelligence knows better. This was Obama at his worst.

First of all, the Tea Party protests aren't really about current levels of taxation. They are primarily about out-of-control government spending and growth, along with the resulting massive deficits and debt increases. It doesn't take too many brain cells to figure out that higher taxation HAS to follow such fiscal irresponsibility eventually, even if Obama is throwing a populist bone to the taxpayers now. The Democrats who are saying "thank you" to Obama's program of cut taxes/increase spending certainly didn't feel the same way about George W. Bush's same program of cut taxes/increase spending. The Democrats were right about Bush, but they've become incredible hypocrites now that their man is in charge, and in little more than a year in office, their man has increased spending more than Bush ever dreamed. Federal spending in 2011 is scheduled to be nearly a trillion dollars more than it was in 2008. That is astounding, and remember, after that the huge spending increases for ObamaCare start to kick in.

Second, Obama is a tax RAISER, not a tax cutter. He broke his pledge not to raise taxes on anyone making under $200,000 about two weeks after he took office, when he implemented a regressive cigarette tax. Obama's health care reform will implement a slew of new taxes, far more than the TEMPORARY tax cuts he instituted for 95% of Americans last year. Obama's wants to end his middle class tax cuts after 2010. Then he wants to reverse the Bush tax cuts for those making over $200,000. Several of the health care reform taxes will hit the middle class, further violating his pledge not to raise taxes on those making under $200,000 per year. Coming up on Obama's agenda is another huge regressive tax scam known as Cap And Trade, which will drive up everyone's energy costs while doing virtually nothing to decrease CO2 emissions. Obama's economic advisors are contemplating several other tax increases, among them a VAT tax, which would also be regressive.

Yet, Obama wants us to say "thank you" for the temporary tax cuts. I don't think so. The American public has to be smarter than to fall for this bait-and-switch crapola. How our President thinks he can control the economic narrative with such fatuous nonsense is beyond me. Oh wait, I do know how. The mainstream media seldom calls him on his lies. Instead, they are complicit in pushing them. That's how.

We've been hearing from the media for a year now that the Tea Party movement has been inciting violence.

Well, as Samuel L. Jackson's character said in the movie Pulp Fiction…allow me to retort.

A couple days ago, the FBI arrested Norman Leboon for threatening to kill Rep. Eric Cantor (R-NY). It appears Leboon was an Obama campaign donor. Leboon posted his threat against Cantor the day after a gun was fired outside Cantor's campaign office and a bullet went through one of the windows. The left-wing media universally poo-pooed the threat (do you think they would have done so had it happened to a Democrat ?).
—
A couple days ago, a Code Pink mob shouted down Republican Karl Rove and ended up shutting down his book-signing event. Code Pink has disrupted many events, including the Republican Naitonal Convention.
—
A few days ago, at a Tea Party event in Harry Reid's hometown of Searchlight, Nevada, pro-Reid people egged Tea Party buses and threatened conservative blogger Andrew Breitbart.
—
About a week ago, conservative columnist Ann Coulter was forced to cancel her speech at the University of Ottawa after she was threatened by about 2,000 student protesters who were egged on by left-wing professors. You may remember a Coulter speech at Columbia University a few years ago, where audience members threw things at her and stormed the stage. Columbia was the same university where students sat quietly and respectfully to listen to Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who has called for the destruction of Israel, among his many other insane beliefs.
—
A left-wing nut who goes by the name of Jason Brown has issued numerous online death threats to Republican Sarah Palin. Brown is a BIG fan of MSNBC (hatemongers?) Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow. Here is an example of Brown's sweet, reasoned rhetoric – "Death 2 Palin family them retarded hillbillies take teabaggers w/ you hateful b*tch," and "@Palin360 you need 2 b assassinated soon we ll settle 4 one of the family if not u!." This nut wants to take out some Tea Party members too, as follows – "maybe it takes a murder or 2 2 get the point across take aim at radical TP members." Yet, I never hear ANYONE tell Keith Olbermann to stop inciting violence. Weird, huh ?
—
Now get a load of some of the sweet, reasoned hate mail and death threats conservative blogger Michelle Malkin receives. She gets it by the boatload, and I have to apologize in advance for the following sick, ugly language. If you are easily offended, stop reading NOW. The editing of profanity is mine.

Here's one from Greg Diaz – "times up you ugly motherf*cker make sure sure your husband signs that policy b*tch."

Another from Jim Sneller – "What the f*ck are you?? A f*cking Jap or what?? If you f*cking don’t like the the USA, get the F*ck out!! You have nothing good to say about anybody !! You are a F*cking Idoit !!!! In your own Country you would be put to death!! You are one stupid f*cking C*nt!!!!!!!! You don’t like how I talk?? F*ck you !!!!! Get out the f*ck of my Country!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You f*cking a$$hole !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!"

A third from Steven Frankel – "Go back to what ever Asian hell hole you came from, you’re not an American no American would cheer a defeat to America…get the f*ck out now you stupid c*nt before we drag you out by your Pubic hair..out damn twat!!!"

Nice, eh ? But, according to liberals, it's the Tea Party movement that is racist. Mmm-hmm. Whatever.
—
Left-wing anarchist protesters and other left-wing protest groups broke store windows, threw bottles at the police, and set trash cans on fire at the G20 summit in Pittsburgh.
—
Left-wing eco-terrorist groups like Earth Liberation Front and Animal Liberation Front have launched hundreds, if not thousands, of attacks, ranging from property destruction and vandalism to arson, firing rockets, and blowing people up. The Unabomber was one such eco-terrorist.
—
During last summer's townhall meetings, where the media was obsessed with the alleged violent behavior of the anti-ObamaCare people, of the 10 documented violent acts, most of them minor, 7 were committed by Democrats.
—
In february, the University of Alabama professor, left-winger Amy Bishop, went on a shooting spree because she was denied tenure. She shot five colleagues, killing three. She also killed her own brother in 1986 and is suspected of planting a mail bomb. She was, according to family members, "obsessed" with Obama.
—
Last June, James Von Brunn shot two guards at the Holocaust Museum. Von Brunn left many writings on the internet. Among his beliefs – he hated Bush, McCain, neoconservatives (read: jews), was a 9/11 Truther, and voiced his approval for socialism. He was also a white supremacist. Yet, the left-wing media tried to portray him as a right-winger. Sure. Whatever.
—
A 2008 report said there had been 50 attacks on army recruiting centers between 2003 and 2008. "The peace protesters are not peaceful," said Catherine Moy of Move America Forward. "They are violent."
—
I could go on and on and on with more examples, but I'm hoping some will see my point here. The point is that the left has been engaging in intimidation tactics and disruptive violent protest for as long as I can remember. That's just what they do. I've seen it from the 60's forward. It has never stopped. What I can't remember is even one time where those protesters were painted as a systemic danger by the media. I also can't remember the media ever citing liberal speech as the reason for the violence. Yet, when conservatives and independents finally emerge to protest the unsustainable economic path our federal government has put us on, aka, the Tea Party movement, the media falls all over itself to paint the movement as a danger, and falls all over itself to say conservative speech is inciting violence.

It's an absolute disgrace, and perhaps the clearest example of media bias I have seen to date.

Welcome To The Machine - On the same day President Obama invited Rep. Jim Matheson (D-UT) to the White House to pressure him to switch his vote on health care reform, Obama appointed Matheson's brother, Scott Matheson, to a judgeship on the 10th Circuit Court Of Appeals. I'm sure that was an entirely random, coincidental event with absolutely no underlying political calculations whatsoever…not at all similar to the way things are done in Obama's old stomping grounds…not at all similar to the Chicago way….not at all. This is the most ethical administration ever…especially when they aren't lying about everything.
===
Global Warming Kettle Calls Pot Black – "First of all, we just got five feet of snow in Washington and so everybody is like — a lot of the people who are opponents of climate change, they say, see, look at that, there’s all this snow on the ground, this doesn’t mean anything. I want to just be clear that the science of climate change doesn’t mean that every place is getting warmer; it means the planet as a whole is getting warmer. But what it may mean is, for example, Vancouver, which is supposed to be getting snow during the Olympics, suddenly is at 55 degrees, and Dallas suddenly is getting seven inches of snow." – Barack "The Weatherman" Obama.

The glaring problem with Obama's "everything is climate change now" rhetoric is that Vancouver doesn't usually get much snow in February. The average temperature there in February is 48 degrees Fahrenheit. Not exactly snow weather, and a temp of 55 degrees is just an example of normal weather variation. Exit questions – What if Sarah Palin said something this dumb ? How many months would it be before the media stopped talking about it ?
===
Nominee For Idiot Of The Year - The following video shows MSNBC talker Dylan Ratigan "interviewing" a Tea Party representative, and hijacking his own interview by refusing to allow the Tea Party guy to answer the questions put to him. Ratigan instead used the segment as a transparent ploy to parrot the constant MSNBC propaganda point that the Tea Party movement is a racist movement.

This might be a new low in what passes for journalism. Either that, or Ratigan fancies himself the next Keith Olbermann, a dubious aspiration at best.

While I'm on the subject of the Tea Party movement…I keep hearing from liberals that the Tea Parties are chock full of racist signs, and having attended Tea Parties, I haven't seen any. Not one. I have seen a couple signs on the internet that COULD be interpreted as racist (and could also be liberal plants), out of the hundreds of thousands of signs from which to choose at Tea Party events. Can some liberal please show me all these racist Tea Party signs ??? I really want to see what all the fuss is about.
===
A Good Day To Die – "Today is a big day in America. Only 36,000 people lost their jobs today, which is really good." – Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) link

I've heard of the bigotry of soft expectations, but this is ridiculous. By Reid's standard, if only 20,000 people lost their jobs next month, that would be, as Tony the Tiger used to say, "GRRREEAAT !"

Time for a new Senate Majority Leader. This one's broken.
===
Rules ? We Don't Need No Stinking Rules - From NBC News:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said today the American people ought to know more about what she called "total obstruction" by the Republican Party in the Senate. Referring to Sen. Jim Bunning's hold-up of unemployment benefits earlier this week, Pelosi said, "It's not about rules, it's about a decision they've made to obstruct."

Here we have Pelosi admitting that the Pay-Go rules passed by the Democrats a couple weeks ago are basically meaningless. They bypassed them the first time they had the opportunity to enforce them, and then they have the gall to portray the one Senator who called the Dems on their dishonesty an obstructionist. Wow. Words fail me.

Time for a new Congress. This one's broken.
===
Obama As The New Bush - Students in Jakarta, Indonesia are protesting President Obama's upcoming visit to that country. Obama previously has been very popular in Indonesia, having spent part of his childhood in Jakarta. From the Associated Press:

Scores of Islamic students staged protests outside Jakarta's parliament and in at least three other major Indonesian cities on Friday against President Barack Obama's upcoming visit to this predominantly Muslim country.

The students carried banners branding Obama as an enemy of Islam and an imperialist in downtown Jakarta as well as in the provincial capitals Padang, Yogyakarta and Surabaya.

They also threw shoes at large pictures of Obama's head. An Iraqi journalist was sentenced to a year in prison for throwing his shoes at U.S. President George W. Bush during a news conference in Baghdad in 2008.

Protest organizer Ahmad Irhamul Fikri, spokesman for the Coordinating Board for Campus Proselytizing Institute, said bigger rallies will be staged next Friday in more Indonesian cities ahead of Obama's March 20-22 visit.

If there's a bright side here…maybe this will shut up some of the fringe element nuts known as the Birthers, who think Obama is a foreign-born Muslim who wants to establish a Caliphate here in America, or something.

If you listen to the liberal media or the mainstream media (pardon my redundancy), you probably know that the Tea Party movement consists of the six 'R's – Racist Radical Retarded Redneck Revolutionary Rubes. You know the Tea Party movement hates Obama because he is black, and that the Tea Partiers sit around all day cleaning their guns in anticipation of the violent overthrow of the government. You know those crazed Tea Party nuts are hate-filled, foaming-at-the-mouth, illiterate morons who can barely speak in full sentences. You are probably surprised they don't walk on all fours…if you listen to our esteemed media.

Now I'd like to show you a list of twenty policy proposals that the Tea Party people have chosen to vote upon among themselves, to either approve or disapprove. Wait until you get a load of the far-out, loony, and subversive ideas these extremists have cooked up out of their fevered minds. Here they are:

- Amending the constitution to require a balanced budget and a two-thirds majority for any tax hike.
- Permanently repealing all tax hikes scheduled to begin in 2011.
- Requiring every bill in Congress to be made public seven days before any vote can be taken and all government expenditures authorized by any bill to be easily accessible on the Internet before the money is spent.
- Requiring each bill to identify the specific provision of the Constitution that gives Congress the power to do what the bill does.
- Permitting all health insurance plans to be sold anywhere in the United States through the purchase of insurance across state lines. Allow small businesses and associations to pool together across state lines to buy insurance.
- Adopting a simple and fair single-rate tax system by scrapping the internal revenue code and “replacing it with one that is no longer than 4,543 words — the length of the original Constitution.”
- Imposing a statutory cap limiting the annual growth in total federal spending to the sum of inflation rate plus the percentage of population growth.
- Allowing Americans to opt out of Social Security and Medicare and instead put those same payroll taxes in a personal account “they own, control and can leave to whomever they choose.”
- Preventing any regulation or tax on the Internet.
- Improving education by eliminating ineffective and wasteful programs, giving parents more choices from pre-school to high school and improving the affordability of higher education.
- Authorizing the exploration of proven energy reserves to reduce our dependence on foreign energy sources from unstable countries and reduce regulatory barriers to all other forms of energy creation, lowering prices and creating competition.
- Prohibiting the Federal Communications Commission from using funds to reinstate the Fairness Doctrine.
- Creating a Blue Ribbon task force that engages in a complete audit of federal agencies and programs.
- Blocking state and local governments that receive federal grants from exercising eminent domain over private property for the primary purpose of economic development or enhancement of tax revenues.
- Preventing the EPA from implementing costly new regulations.
- Placing a moratorium on all earmarks until the process is fully transparent. Also requiring a two-thirds majority to pass any earmark.
- Making all lawmaking regulators, including presidential appointed czars, be affirmatively approved by Congress and signed into law by the president.
- Audit the Federal Reserve System.
- Making sure the federal government does not bail out private companies. The government should also immediately divest itself of its stake in the private companies it owns from recent bailouts.
- Amending the constitution to require congressional term limits. No person shall be elected to the Senate more than twice or to the House of Representatives more than four times.
- Making all regulations “sunset” after 10 years unless renewed by congressional vote.
- Broadcasting all non-security meetings and votes on C-SPAN and the Intern

Aren't all those ideas just insan…..er, wait a sec. Most of those ideas actually sound pretty good to me. Very rational. Hmmm. What's going on here ? I don't see a crazy idea in the bunch. This is very confusing. These policy proposals from the Tea Party movement don't sound anything at all like the kinds of nutty stuff I expected from listening to the media condemn the raving Teabaggers all this time. I didn't see anything about Obama's birth certificate, or death panels, or allowing citizens to own tanks and rocket launchers, or any white supremacist stuff…Weird, huh ?

Gee, if I didn't know better, I'd think the media might be lying.

Hmmm.

There is an interesting Senate election taking place in Massachusetts, one that could have major implications on whether or not the massively unpopular ObamaCare health reform legislation is unilaterally rammed through by the Democrats in Congress. The special election is tomorrow, when either the Democrat, Martha Coakley, or the infidel, er, I mean, the Republican, Scott Brown, will take over the seat vacated by Ted Kennedy's death. Normally, a Republican would have as much chance of winning that Senate seat as a black man would have of becoming a Grand Wizard in the Ku Klux Klan, but something is up in Massachusetts, a state that is bluer than blue (and sadder than sad, as Crystal Gayle would sing). Even though only 12% of Massachusetts voters are Republicans, while 37% are Democrats, the Republican Scott Brown has a narrow lead in the polling. The election could go either way.

How could this be happening, in Taxachusetts of all places ? That's a poser, alright. There is no doubt that Coakley is the better choice. Here she is being interviewed by a reporter for the Weekly Standard:

That's the reporter on the ground in the bottom right hand corner of the photo, after he was pushed down by a Coakley thug while daring to ask the rightful heir to Ted Kennedy's throne a couple questions. Clearly, Coakley is a woman of the people, kinda like Evita. No word yet on how many pairs of shoes Martha Coakley owns.

Coakley also has a clear grasp of the issues, as exemplified by her groundbreaking statement that there are no more terrorists in Afghanistan. Apparently, Coakley believes that the rising number of terrorist attacks in Afghanistan in 2009 were all committed by disgruntled postal workers or something. I really can't say.

A Coakley attack ad even misspelled the word Massachusetts. The Coakley version was 'Massachusettes.' Dan Quayle could not be reached for comment on his 'potatoe' farm. I'm waiting for Coakley to become a national joke for the next twenty years, but that probably won't happen. After all, Coakley is not an infidel, er, I mean, a Republican, so the standards are different.

Trying to prove how her ethical standards rival those of her predecessor, Senator Kennedy, Coakley even has her own version of Chappaquiddick. In the Coakley version, nobody lost their life, which gives her an ethical leg-up on Kennedy, but Coakley did knowingly seek to keep an innocent man in prison for political gain. That man's name was Gerald Amirault, who was falsely imprisoned for sexual abuse. Here was Coakley's contribution:

And that’s where ambition-driven District Attorney Martha Coakley enters the picture. By 2001, no person with two brain cells to rub together believed that the prosecution of the Amiraults was anything other than a travesty of justice. But Coakley, placing more value on defending the infallibility of her office and on appearing tough on crime than on seeing that injustice be rectified, embarked on a public-relations crusade to keep Gerald Amirault behind bars. As a result, Gerald languished in prison for another three years.

Nice. That's who we want in the Senate, a person who puts political aspirations above justice. Come to think of it, Coakley will fit right in.

The Democrats are so worried that Scott Brown might pull off a miracle upset in Massachusetts (Brown is up 5 points in the latest poll) that they sent in their big gun – none other than the light-skinned President with no negro dialect unless he wants one, Barack Obama. The President described the situation:

"Understand what's at stake here: It's whether we're going forward or going backward," Obama told a crowd of 1,500 at Northeastern University. "As much progress as we've made, I can't do it alone."

Beyond the silliness of Obama's 'my way or the highway' position on health care reform, this is a bit of a curious strategy for Obama to take, seeing as how Massachusetts voters are firmly AGAINST ObamaCare (by 15 points), as is the rest of America.

It is the consensus that Scott Brown has decisively won the debates with Coakley, in part explaining how Coakley went from over 30 points ahead in november to trailing now, a stunning turnaround. It seems once people looked past the word 'Democrat' on Coakley's resume, they didn't much like what they saw, even when the debates contained such fair and unbalanced question as the following one from the fairly unbalanced moderator David Gergen, who acted as if Scott Brown was, as I said before, an infidel. Here's the arrogant question from Gergen, along with the complete takedown of Gergen in the answer from Republican Scott Brown:

CNN senior political analyst David Gergen had to be reminded of this fact [that Democrats are not entitled to Senate seats] Monday as he moderated a debate between the two candidates for Massachusetts's open Senate seat. He asked Republican candidate Scott Brown whether he'd be willing to "sit in Teddy Kennedy's seat and [say] I'm going to be the person who's going to block it [liberal health care policy] for another 15 years."
But Brown, refusing to take for granted Gergen's blatantly left-wing premises, responded instead: "Well, with all due respect it's not the Kennedys' seat, and it's not the Democrats' seat, it's the people's seat."

Obviously, the infidel Brown doesn't think like a liberal. He doesn't know about the Democrats entitlement mentality. He has the audacity to think the voters should decide.

All I can say is, if Brown wins, thereby breaking the filibuster-proof majority of the Democrats in the Senate, then we'll see just how democratic the Democrats really are, and we'll see how many of them will risk losing their own Congressional seats to pass an ObamaCare bill against the wishes of the American people. Should be interesting. The economic woes of Massachusetts are causing many there to wake up, and they've been trying to shake off that Taxachusetts label. In addition, Massachusetts has seen firsthand what happens when the government mandates universal health coverage, promising to lower premiums and reduce costs. RomneyCare in Massachusetts has accomplished neither, and even Mitt Romney himself says it would be a bad model for the country to follow.

1. How can President Obama hold a jobs summit and not invite the Chamber Of Commerce ? That's like holding a football game and forgetting to invite the offense.

2. How can the unemployment rate drop from 10.2% to 10% when 11,000 more jobs were lost in november 2009 ?

3. From 1776 to 1913, the value of the dollar increased by 13%. In 1913, the Federal Reserve was implemented. Since 1913, the value of the dollar has dropped by 92%. Why do we have a Federal Reserve ?

4. Why would the President announce a withdrawal date of july 2011 from a war that is not yet won ?

5. Why would President Obama call the november 2009 jobs report "the best jobs report since december 2007" and talk about White House administration officials hugging each other in joy over the good news, when the november unemployment rate is 10% and the december 2007 unemployment rate was 4.9% ? FYI – the january 2008 unemployment rate was also 4.9%.

6. Why are the extramarital affairs of golfer Tiger Woods a big news story ?

7. If the Federal Reserve prints money out of thin air, backed by nothing, in order to, say, lend $85 billion to AIG, and then AIG pays back that money from profits, isn't the net effect nothing but a devaluation of the dollar ?

8. Isn't a devaluation of the dollar nothing but a hidden tax on the assets of all Americans ?

9. If a citizen continually spends more money than he/she makes, he/she will go bankrupt. How is it any different when the government does the same thing, except that the government will take all the citizens down along with it ?

10. Why would we hand health care over to government control when the part of health care the government does control (Medicare/Medicaid) is already so far in the red ?

11. How can the Obama stimulus possibly be working when it is based upon money borrowed or printed out of thin air, backed by nothing, and is therefore entirely artificial ? (See questions #3, #7, and #8).

12. If question #11 is too confusing, perhaps this will help simplify the matter. Does a man up to his neck in credit card debt improve his financial situation by getting more credit cards ?

13. What is wrong with asking the President of the United States to produce his original birth certificate ?

14. Is there any major Obama policy that is supported by the American people ?

15. Why don't we just put Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in front of a firing squad and save everyone a lot of time and money ?

16. How do tax increases ever help the private sector economy ?

17. Shouldn't there have to be at least one act of Tea Party-related violence (from the Tea Party side) before the media denounces the crazy, violent, extremist Tea Partiers ?

18. On the same subject, why is it considered crazy and extreme to be in favor of fiscal responsibility, liberty, and the U.S. Constitution, as the Tea Partiers are ? What does that say about the state of our country ?

19. On the jobs front, which Obama policies are pro-business ?

20. Why are Democrats now in favor of cutting Medicare, when they've been against Medicare cuts for four decades ?