Monday, 13 July 2009

What I Hate About Judicial Confirmation Hearings...

No Speech

The Senate confirmation hearings for Sonia Sotomayor are underway and right from the get go I'm reminded of what I hate about these hearings:  The speeches.  Those long-winded, unnecessary, pose-for-the-camera speeches by Senators.

I already know Orrin Hatch and Dianne Feinstein.  In this forum I don't need to hear  (agiain) what they know or what they think.  This hearing isn't about whether anyone is going to vote for them next election.  It's about whether I want them to vote for Sotomayor.

I can only learn about Sotomayor if the Senators ask her questions and let her talk.

If I were running these hearings I'd ban all opening remarks by Senators beyond "Good morning."  Force them to dive right into the questions.  I'd also put a time limit on asking the acutual questions so that we don't hear, as we usally do, an extended monologue by a Senator followed by a simple question.

That's just a fantasy.  I predict more words will be spoken by the Senators than by Sotomayor during these hearings.  I wonder if there is someone out there who can count the words.

Friday, 10 July 2009

Barack Obama Likes Big Butts; Impresses Sarkozy


BABY GOT BARACK!

YES WE "CAN!"

Obamabum


Here we see President O-bum-a "eye-molesting" a young lady's derriere.

The look on French President Sarkozy's face is PRICELESS.

I hope this photo becomes as famous as Ruth Orkin's 1951 photo "An American Girl In Italy:"

American-girl-in-italy-1951-ruth-orkin1


By the way the girl in the Obama photo, Mayara Tavares, is 16 years old.  That's about 6 years younger than Monica Lewinsky was when Bill Clinton decided he liked girls half his age.

Tavares is 1/3 Obama's age.  Pretty gross, Barack.

I wonder if the Obama/Sarkozy eye-candy photo explains anything about this shot:

MichelleAndCarla

So far this morning I've seen both ABC and NBC defending Barack.  You know, like they did with Governor Mark Sandford.

Sir Mix a Lot, Sponge Bob and the Burger King are all not impressed:


Update:

Here's another "Obama likes Butts" shot of the Commander In Cheeks. Thanks for making us look so distinguished in the eyes of the world, Barack:

ObamaButt2

Wednesday, 08 July 2009

Palin Proves The Problem With Journalism Is Maureen Dowd

Sarah_palin_01         Dowd_maureen

Sara Palin, Official Photo                           Maureen Dowd, Mall Glamour Shot?

The one-two punch thrown by Democrats and their counterparts in mainstream media have probably cost Alaska the governorship of Sarah Palin. 

 

Sarah has provided two reason for stepping down as Alaska’s governor:  1) The money she and the state have had to spend defending against 15 ethics complaints, all dismissed, and 2) The endless attacks against her spouse and children by Democrats, the media and those in pop culture.

 

Politics is officially a rich person’s sport – so long as you are rich enough to defend yourself against a string of baseless complaints you can stay.

 

Also, the children of Republican politicians are now a target-rich environment for Democrats and media demagogues.  It makes you wonder how many good people otherwise willing to serve, perhaps even better than those serving us now, are deciding to stay away from politics because of ruthlessness from Democrats and the media.

 

Let’s look at both issues.

 

Right down to the level of local politics, Democrat strategy is to bring ethics complaints against Republicans in the months leading up to an election.  The goal is pure smear.  After the election the complaints are dismissed or abandoned, as they are no longer useful against the Republican candidate. 

 

Even baseless complaints have to be defended.  In Sarah Palin’s case, she racked up a few hundred thousand dollars in legal bills and Alaskans spent even more for administrative costs. It gets in the way of governing.

 

The solution here is for Alaska to pass a bonding law.  Anyone filing an ethics complaint against a candidate within a year of an election should be required to post a bond to cover the costs should the ethics complaint be found to be baseless or abandoned.

 

On to Democrats beating up kids. That didn’t start with the Palin teenagers.  It started in 2004 with Dick Cheney’s daughter Mary.

 

During John Kerry’s debate with George W. Bush, Kerry brought up that Mary Cheney is a lesbian.  During John Edwards’ debate with Dick Cheney, Edwards brought up that Mary Cheney is a lesbian.

 

If a Republican were to bring up lesbianism, the left would scream that they were trying to rally their homophobic base.  What Kerry and Edwards were trying to do was, exactly that – rally the Democrat homophobic base.

 

Kerry campaign manager Mary Beth Cahill was interviewed about why Kerry and Edwards kept bringing up Mary Cheney being a lesbian.  Her response:  She called Mary Cheney “fair game.”

 

“Fair game” is a hunting term, used to identify which animals one can shoot.  Can you imagine the outrage were a Republican to call a woman “fair game” because she is a lesbian?  No Republican would, but the Democrats did.

 

It was the first time in American history that either party officially announced that they were intentionally attacking the family members of opposing candidates.  Democrat politics have been uglier ever since.

 

Sarah Palin walked right into the new world of Democrat child abuse.  As soon as Sarah was announced as the Veep choice, the Obama Campaign, Democrats and their media Igor sidekicks floated every rumor and joke they could think of about the Palin family, from Sarah’s baby being her daughter’s right up to Letterman’s rape joke about 14 year old Willow Palin.

 

Don’t think of Sarah when you hear these jokes.  Think of the two teenage girls who have to take it from Democrat adults, who are forced to suffer public abuse they may not be mentally ready to take, for no other reason than their mother wished to serve her country.

 

In the next Presidential election Malia Obama will be 14 like Willow Palin.  Should conservatives go at her with both barrels, tease her, ridicule her and hurt her every time she turns on the television?  Hell no.  Conservatives wince at the thought, even while knowing Democrats have positioned our children as “fair game.”  It is the burden of those who set the high moral bar to live by it, even has Democrats pass underneath the bar in an effort to hurt our families.

 

Sarah Palin is a woman who came up through the ranks from local politics to the governorship, which used to be honored as paying your dues through gradual experience.  To hammer Sarah, the Democrats and the media turned starting from the bottom into something bad.  Democrats believe it’s more respectable to spend $80 million of your own money buying your first elected office as US Senator, as did NJ Democrat Jon Corzine.

 

In the 20th century 8 men rose from governorships to the Presidency. Most had not a lick of foreign policy experience (like Reagan or Clinton). A governorship became the standard for pre-Presidential experience, and if you hadn’t been a governor and were standing for President, you had some explaining to do.  Yet for Palin, the Democrats and the media threw out the governorship standard, when the only difference between Sarah, Reagan and Clinton was that she is a woman.  Misogyny was used to tear apart Sarah.  So-called feminist groups have only been heard to applaud it.

 

So what does all this have to do with Maureen Dowd, political columnist for the erstwhile “paper of record” the New York Times?

 

When Sarah Palin announced her resignation she did so with the complaint that the media was relentless in ridiculing her and her family.  Dowd stood at the crossroads of choice: She could pen a column acknowledging some of Palin’s good works - like taking on her own party, fighting corruption and gaining unmatched popularity in her home state.  Or, Dowd could continue down the road of journalism as pro-wrestling and throw a mindless, Hulk Hogan smack-down on Palin (thus proving Palin’s point).

 

We know what a journalist would do.

 

Here is what Maureen Dowd did (I won’t reprint her whole column, just the names and adjectives she used on Sarah):

 

Caribou Barbie, nutty puppy, exquisite battiness, erratic, egoistic, narcissistic personality disorder, grandiosity, need for admiration, lack of empathy, loopy, solipsistic meltdown, strange, incoherent, breathless, prickly, thin skinned, country-music melodrama, reckless, ga-ga, crazy like a fox, crazy, casuistry, girlish burbling.

 

You don’t need any other words from Dowd’s column to understand it, because the entirety of it was this ad hominem attack. Such is the state of journalism post-liberal takeover. Reason is dead and yellow journalism soars. Dowd no longer even tries her hand at political analysis with intellect.  She has gone form Pulitzer Prize, to plagiarism to name-calling. 

 

Stay classy, New York Times. As for Dowd, maybe Vince McMahon’s WWE wrestling needs a commentator.

Tuesday, 07 July 2009

I Dare You Not To Cry. I Triple Dog Dare You.

Saturday, 04 July 2009

Happy Independence Day!

Take a moment to review the Declaration if Independence today to honor why we created this great nation and what we believe.

Then go have some fun!  One of the best byproducts of freedom in America is all the fun we have in our pursuit of happiness.

So here's some fun:

 


Friday, 03 July 2009

Rockets' Red Glare and Bombs Bursting In Air On July 4th?

Obama Point            Kimjongil

Tomorrow we may see the most interesting fireworks show in the history of Independence Day.

North Korea is planning to test an ICBM, quite possibly fired in our direction (you know, because they aren't part of the axis of evil).

President Obama may shoot it down when Kim Jong Crazy fires it.

I hope he does.

Here is what it may look like:


Thursday, 02 July 2009

Bush Vindicated On Iraqi WMDs By Hussein’s FBI Interview

Saddam-AceOfSpades File this one in the “we’ve been telling this to liberals all along” folder.  Saddam Hussein intentionally made the world believe he had WMDs.  Liberals can finally stop bad mouthing former CIA director George Tenet.

The National Security Archives has just published reports of more than two dozen conversations between Saddam Hussein and Arabic speaking FBI agent George Piro.

The conversations make clear that America had a very good reason to invade Iraq in search of weapons of mass destruction in 2003 and Saddam Hussein supplied that reason himself.

By way of background (for the sake of liberals who ignore it or conveniently pretend not to know it) Saddam Hussein agreed to no longer have weapons of mass destruction at the conclusion of the first Gulf War in 1991.  It was either agree to that, or risk Stormin’ Norman Schwartzkopf continuing through Iraq and deposing him.

Consistent with the ceasefire agreement, UN Resolution 687 was passed and Iraq agreed to it.  In UNR 687 Saddam agreed not only to forgo having WMDs, but to two other very important things:

  1. The public destruction of the WMDs he possessed, and

  2. Continuing inspections to make sure he didn’t produce more.

Schwartzkopf once noted how badly Saddam Hussein tended to miscalculate on the battlefield.  The FBI interviews now reveal his political miscalculations gave George W. Bush no choice but to invade Iraq. 

In a conversation with Piro on February 13, 2004, Hussein admitted that Iraq accepted UNR 687, but said that he made a mistake in destroying some weapons without UN supervision.

Mistake?  That’s an understatement.  Consider where that “mistake” ultimately left America – having to take Saddam Hussein at his word that he destroyed the weapons privately, in the face of his agreement to do so publically.  Consider too that weapons inspector Hans Blix’ admitted Iraq had fooled him in the 1980’s by hiding their nuclear program form him as an IAEA inspector, and it’s clear Bush had no reason to take Saddam at his word.

Which raises the issue of the foreign policy inexperience of our current President who, while knowing the above, was against America going into Iraq to look for weapons and therefore would have taken Hussein at his word.

If you are thinking of letting President Obama off the hook because ultimately no weapons were found, consider that in June 2000 Hussein gave a speech saying he WOULD NOT disarm unless the whole region had disarmed.  That’s an admission that he still had the weapons.

In a conversation with Piro on May 13, 2004, Hussein said he actually didn’t consider that his June 2000 statement would give the impression that he still had weapons of mass destruction, and he would be glad to make a statement clearing that up.  Talk about closing the barn door after the horse is out – America had already invaded and Hussein was in American custody by then.

In a conversation with Piro on June 13, 2004, Hussein reversed himself and spoke of his reason for giving the June 2000 speech that led the world to believe he still had WMDs.  He felt Iran wanted to invade and annex all of southern Iraq.  He felt that the rest of the Arab countries were too weak to do anything about it.  This passage from Piro’s report sums up best why Hussein intentionally led the world (Obama included) to believe he still had WMDs:

“Hussein stated he was more concerned about Iran discovering Iraq’s weaknesses and vulnerabilities than the repercussions of the United States for his refusal to allow UN inspectors back into Iraq.  In his opinion, the UN inspectors would have directly identified to the Iranians where to inflict maximum damage to Iraq…Hussein indicated he was angered when the United States struck Iraq in 1998.  Hussein stated Iraq could have absorbed another United States strike for he viewed this as less of a threat than exposing themselves to Iran.”

There’s that miscalculation Schwartzkopf spoke of.  Hussein thought it better for America to think he had WMDs than for Iran to know that he didn’t.  Someone should have told him to be careful what he wished for.

Iraq agreed to UN 687 as a quid pro quo for ending the 1991 war.  He not only violated it by refusing to publically destroy weapons or allow inspections, but he subsequently ignored almost a dozen UN resolutions commanding he comply, some of which warned him of military consequences for non-compliance.  Now we know why – fear of Iran.

Assume you are President of the United States in 2003.  Would you invade Iraq to look for Weapons of Mass Destruction if you know this? –

  1. Hussein used WMDs in previous wars;

  2. He had in the past tricked IAEA inspector Hans Blix and hid his nuclear program from Blix;

  3. Hussein violated his agreement to publically destroy WMDs, and asked UN inspector Hans Blix to please believe him this time that he did;

  4. Hussein stopped the UN inspections in Iraq;

  5. Hussein made a speech in June 2000 that made clear he still had WMDs.

It’s unfathomable that President Obama, knowing the above, would not have gone in to look for WMDs. What would it take to move him, a mushroom cloud on US soil? President Bush responded correctly by not taking Hussein the liar at his word. He made the right call by invading Iraq to confirm the status of WMDs once and for all.

Case closed.

Wednesday, 01 July 2009

Limbaugh: "Michael Jackson flourished under Reagan, languished under Clinton and Bush, died under Obama"

Only Conservatives who watch this video will catch on to the great compliment Rush pays to Michael Jackson about exceptionalism that comes from individualism, which is the centerpiece of conservative thinking.

For libs, that will fly right over their heads with no understanding of it whatsoever.

Enjoy the vid:

Tuesday, 30 June 2009

Stuart Smalley Wins (Steals?) Minnesota Election!!!!

Stuart-smalley-posters Good grief.  The Minnesota Supreme Court ruled in favor of certifying the election of Al Franken to the US Senate.

What is wrong with the people of Minnesota?

Bad enough they gave us a "9/11 truther" like Jesse Ventura. Since he was Governor that was kind of their business.

Now we have to put up with Al Franken in the Senate?  That affects the rest of us.

If you look at a map of the U.S., the state of Michigan looks like a giant hand in a mitten on top of America (they like to call it America's high five).

Here's a pic: 
                                

Michigan

Now if we can just get that giant hand to reach over and smack Minnesota voters for giving us Senator Stuart Smalley, I might be able to forgive them.

It could be though that it wasn't the voters' fault. This election had all sorts of shenanigans go on involving contested ballots.

Hold on to your wallets.  The Senate will now have a super-lib majority.

Alan Carlin Speaks Truth To Global Warming Power And Gets Silenced

Who is Alan Carlin?  A 38 year veteran of the Environmental Protection Agency.

What did he do?  Drafted this 98 page report showing some of the myths of Global Warming.

What happened to him?  His report was suppressed.

The liberal media is all over this story, reporting it as top news on every television channel.  Just kidding.  They're suppressing the story with as much fervent zeal as the EPA had in suppressing Carlin's report.

The crux of Carlin's report is that America's EPA is simply accepting the findings of outside groups on Global Warming, most notably from the notoriously anti-American (my words) United Nations.

How lazy.  America has this monster agency we are paying millions of dollars to support, and all they are doing is reading UN reports.

Carlin's report talks about these rather "inconvenient truths" regarding Global Warming:

1)  Global Temperatures have declined the last 11 years;

2)  There is no effect on Atlantic hurricane development by Global Warming;

3)  Greenland is not rapidly shedding its ice;

4)  The Global Recession has already greatly reduced emission levels on its own;

5) 
Models used concerning strongly positive feedback from water vapor are flawed, and the evidence suggests a negative feedback.

6)  Solar variability affects global temperatures more than any other factor.

So did the EPA decide to follow up on Carlin's report? Nope.  Under the Obama Administration, no debate is allowed, no science can get in the way.  They have declared the debate over, accepted Global Warming as religious dogma and no one better be caught in the heretical crime of showing any disagreement, no matter how good their science.

Don't believe me?  Read this email from Carlin's boss:

Mcgartland-carlin-epa-memo

Wow.  Look at that.  "The time for discussion has passed..."   "Your comments do not help the legal or policy case..."

In other words, real science be damned.  The President has a position that Global Warming is real, and we have to support it.

Now let's examine the "media can't connect the dots between two stories" problem.

What is rally scary is the Obama administration is now moving forward with the cap and trade (cap and tax actually), multi-trillion dollar, business killing debacle, all based upon phony global warming science.

The House of Representatives passed the "cap and tax" bill this week, and it's off to the Senate.

You can read the bill here, if you have the time to get through 1,201 pages of reading today.

Good grief.

Google Ads!

Google Search

RightyBlogs Headlines