Justified Right

Obama Approves Of Racial Intimidation, Nightsticks At Polls

Democrats are awful.

Remember in the 2004 election when the Democratic National Committee put out an election handbook telling workers to claim voter intimidation by Republicans even if there wasn't any?  Here is part of the handbook:

2. If no signs of intimidation have emerged yet, launch a "pre-emptive
strike..."

The handbook then makes suggestions for press releases with quotes from important people about voter intimidation in general, which will give the impression that voter intimidation is taking place now.

In other words, the DNC told poll workers to mislead the world into thinking the Republicans engaged in voter intimidation when they did not.

That gave rise to endless screams of voter suppression which were baseless.

The standard for what could possibly be "voter intimidation" when Bush won elections was set pretty low.  Read this report from the US Commission on Civil Rights, where it is suggested that the mere presence of an empty police car parked across the street from a polling place could be intimidation.

Now fast forward to the 2008 election, when 3 members of the New Black Panther Party showed up in paramilitary uniforms, one brandishing a nightstick.  They stood near the doorway of a Philadelphia polling place, one tapping the nightstick in his hand, and proceeded to make insults to white people (and black people they perceived as McCain supporters) as they came to vote.

Fox News reports:

A poll watcher who provided an affidavit to prosecutors in the case noted that Bartle Bull, who worked as a civil rights lawyer in the south in the 1960's and is a former campaign manager for Robert Kennedy, said it was the most blatant form of voter intimidation he had ever seen.

In his affidavit, obtained by FOX News, Bull wrote "I watched the two uniformed men confront voters and attempt to intimidate voters. They were positioned in a location that forced every voter to pass in close proximity to them. The weapon was openly displayed and brandished in plain sight of voters."

He also said they tried to "interfere with the work of other poll observers ... whom the uniformed men apparently believed did not share their preferences politically," noting that one of the panthers turned toward the white poll observers and said "you are about to be ruled by the black man, cracker."

Check out this picture, and decide for yourself if this guy is more intimidating than an empty police car:

Let's be clear that law abiding citizens, both white and black, would not want to deal with these 3 guys and their nightstick at a polling place, nor should they have to summon the courage to do so just to vote.

The Bush Administration investigated the incident and charged the three Black Panthers with voter intimidation.

The Obama Administration has taken over the case, and dropped the charges.

So an empty police vehicle is intimidation, but 3 men in paramilitary uniforms brandishing a nightstick and hurling insults at voters is not?

Imagine if 3 idiots in Ku Klux Klan outfits stood at the entrance of a southern polling place with a nightstick and hurled insults at black voters.  The Obama Administration would not only throw the book at them, the DNC would lie and claim the RNC put them up to it.

For a better feel of how intimidating these guys were, take a look at this video shot on election day, and welcome to the new world of Obama voting -  there's no such thing as voter intimidation, so long as you are intimidating Republicans:

How Obama Will Force You To Paint Your Roof White. Sherwin-Williams Rejoices

The White House must be having a "who can come up with the nuttiest idea" contest.  If they are, Energy Secretary Steven Chu just won.

As if hand-wringing global warming people aren't already perceived to be loony enough, Chu suggested this week that we paint the top of every building in the world white.  In his fantasy, the earth will then retain less heat and get cooler by comparison to today.

Read the craziness here.

This is so stupid I'm certain President Teleprompter will want to try it.

I can picture how the politics of it will play out: 

First there will be congressional hearings.  An expert, curiously named "Benjamin Moore," will testify on behalf of Al Gore and claim the "black-roof scandal" may have been realized too late, and we are all going to die next year unless we immediately begin dropping white paint on buildings from airplanes.

The American Trial Lawyers Association will claim all poor people have victimhood status, tortured at the hands of evil-minded roofing companies who made shingles dark and intentionally used black tar to apply them.  Anyone who ever sweat in the summer will have a class-action lawsuit filed on their behalf.

The roofing companies will go into bankruptcy and the Obama appointed Federal Judge will force them to use their remaining assets to set up a Foundation that paints roofs white.

Another $787 Billion stimulus package will be used to raid the bank accounts of the middle class through higher taxes. That money will be given to ACORN, 75% of which will go to their administrative expenses.  The other 25% will be used to distribute cans of paint and brushes to inner cities.  A decade from now an investigation will uncover much of the paint was used to spruce up DNC campaign offices all over the country, while even more was sold on ebay.

The suburbs will pass zoning ordinances forcing middle class homeowners to paint their homes white at their own expense.  Anyone who does not comply will have their home taken by Eminent Domain for the "public good" and donated to the Steven Chu Environmental Studies Endowment at Berkeley.

World War III will be averted when France withdraws their objection to painting the Eiffel Tower white at the urging of Italy, who will send France a message via Twitter saying, "Our Fresco artworks may be just white blank slates now, but the Gelato isn't melting!"

Ten years from now when the entire world is painted white, the NAACP will sue, complaining that the "white roof initiative" was secretly orchestrated by Republicans and intended as a subliminal message that white is good, when everyone knows white people are actually bad, ever since Supreme Court Justice Sonia Sotomayor ruled that white people are dumber than she is "as a matter of law."

We will then have to start the whole "world-wide paint party" all over again, this time using a less inherently insulting color than white - perhaps a more politically correct and muted "off-coffee" color.

Good Grief.

Conservatives Should Let Sotomayor Through

Is Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor a liberal judge? The American Bar Association rates her as a "centrist." Considering the source, that means she is 100% certifiably a far-left liberal judge.

Since she is replacing a liberal in David Souter, the appointment will be of no consequence to America. You are likely to read over the next month scary stories of some of her liberal rulings, and even scarier her view that her personal background as a woman and minority should be considered in her decisions on cases, which is of course the opposite of what a judge should do.

However, she's no scarier than David Souter, so in the end, her appointment doesn't matter if you do the math: Minus 1 liberal + one liberal = zero liberal gain on the Supreme Court. Conservatives can't do any better than that in the age of Obama.

Conservatives in Congress are in the position of having to pick their battles carefully right now. Trying to block Sotomayor has more down side than up side.

First of all, since she has been vetted for her Federal Judgeship in the past, there is likely to be no personal blockbusters to derail her by way of nanny-gate problems or the like, so she will get in. Conservatives have the moral high-ground on nominees ever since the liberals went after Judge Bork. Let's not relinquish that ground on a fight we'll lose. Let's not be petty like liberals are when they hold the minority position in Congress.

Also, I'm a firm believer in the victor reaping the spoils in politics. Elections are supposed to mean something. If Obama wants her, and she has nothing that legally disqualifies her from service, let him have her. The time to block Sotomayor was last November with a vote for John McCain.

Allowing her through without a knock-down drag-out fight allows Conservatives to make a hat-tip to Latinos, since Sotomayor will be the first Puerto Rican Supreme Court Justice. Not that ethnicity should ever matter, but you know as well has I do that as a consequence of perception, it will matter.

Latino votes are still in play and conservatives can't afford to jeopardize those votes with a fight they can't win, because there will be phony claims of racism if she receives more opposition than she deserves.

The reports that bother me most about her is that she is considered a "bully" toward lawyers and litigants. Unfortunately, I've watched that become more commonplace in Courtrooms in the age of television shows like Judge Judy. Judges now forget they are government servants no different than is our Congressmembers. Judges have a special place in American government though - mouth off to your Congressman and it's free speech; mouth off to a judge and go to jail. The problem stems from judges being appointed (which means the bench gets filled with political cronies and hacks) as opposed to being elected.

The best way to handle a bully judge, I've found, is to broadcast that she is a bully. There are ethics committes that handle such complaints, and if we keep a spotlight on her, she'll have to tone it down and treat people with dignity and respect. Let's set the example and treat her that way during her confirmation hearing. We should be probing but fair during the process.

Obama Is Bush On Steroids

Do you hear that sound? It's the wail of buyer's remorse coming from liberals ever since realizing Obama's policies are George Bush's policies, just bigger.

On the Deficit

Bush's deficit-swelling $700 Billion Bailout was topped by Obama's $787 Billion "Stimulus" package. Liberals have a love-hate relationship with deficit spending - they love it when they do it, hate it when Republicans do it.

Liberal economist Paul Krugman hurled vile insults at President Bush over deficits from 2001 to 2005. When the Democrats took control of Congress in 2006, Krugman reversed his position, sounding like that liar character John Lovitz played on Saturday Night Live: "Yea, yea, deficit spending. That's the ticket! I was for it all along! Deficit spending!"

During last year's campaign the left swore "deficits are bad - so vote for Obama." Obama took office and became the Babe Ruth of deficit spending. Even though Bush shrunk the deficit in years 2005 though 2007, the left scorched him when his 2008 deficit topped $400 billion. Obama's first budget will have a hell plummeting $1.75 trillion deficit, four times bigger than Bush' worst year. His own optimistic numbers admit Obama's best year in a decade will have a $600 Billion deficit. Obama is Bush on steroids.

On Market Economies

Laugh along with me at these words from Paul Krugman:

"It’s a bit disappointing to see the Obama administration engaging in this sort of market-worship — hailing markets as a Good Thing in themselves, rather than as an often but not always useful means to an end. But I have reason to think that unlike the Bushies, they don’t really believe it; it’s just politics."

Oh I see, Paul. Rather than admitting Obama's policies are George Bush's policies, you think Obama looks better if you just call him a liar. With friends like you...

On Detainees

Hocus Pocus Habeas Corpus - watch Obama pull Bush's policies out of his hat.

Obama hugely disappointed the left last week. His clearest campaign promise was to part with the Bush Administration on how to process captured enemy combatants from the war on terror. The left thought Obama would give them a speedy trial, convict them or let them go.

After the election the left stood before Obama, liberal bleeding hearts a-flutter, awaiting the announcement that enemy combatants would be tried. What did they hear? "We will no longer call them 'enemy combatants,'" said Obama. First the liberals yelled,"Yeaaaa!" then they said, "Wait...what? They aren't getting trials?"

Then, copying Bush's position at Gitmo, Obama argued that terrorists held at Bagram Airfield in Afghanistan can't access our courts either. The ACLU called Obama's policies just a continuation of Bush policies, and the Center for Constitutional Rights in New York said, "This is really a case of old wine in new bottles."

It's not the name of the jail or the place that interests the left, it's the trials. That's why the Democrats in Congress just cut off funding for Gitmo closure. They want to know what Obama will do with the prisoners.

So last week Obama finally told them: Enemy combatants, er, "guests of the Navy" will be subjected to "prolonged detention."  Some won't get a trial, because we can't prove they did anything wrong. Instead, they will be held because Obama thinks they might do something wrong in the future.

Holy Habeas Corpus!!!! Jailed for something they haven't done but might do? Proving she's no Keith Olbermann, Rachael Maddow on her show played it fair - she excoriated Obama as a human rights violator. She amusingly compared his idea to the Tom Cruise movie Minority Report where he is a government agent arresting people for crimes before they commit them. Maddow conceded that in the liberal view of things, Obama is worse than Bush on the issue.  As I said - Obama is Bush on steroids, and the left is just finding that out.

On The Wars

Obama the candidate introduced legislation to have all combat troops out of Iraq by March 2008. Bush said 2010.  Obama the President pushed his date 2 1/2 years down the road to -  August 2010, adopting Bush's date. He opposed Bush's troop surge in Iraq, but upon becoming President, ordered a troop surge in Afghanistan.
 
Human Rights In China

A common cry of the left when Bush's Secretary of State Condoleeza Rice would have economic talks with China was that Rice should talk more about human rights violations. Obama's Secretary of State Clinton recently said this of China: "But our pressing on those issues [human rights] can't interfere with the global economic crisis, the global climate change crisis, and the security crisis."  That's exactly the Bush position.

On Gay Equal Rights and Military Service

The left made an assumption about Obama - being the first Kenyan-American President, he would equalize rights in all areas they appear unequal. Boy are they disappointed. It's easy to be for equal rights for your own group, but it takes courage to extend rights to a group you aren't in. Obama doesn't have the courage.

Miss California Carrie Prejean highlighted that she, Obama and Bush have the same view of legal marriage - it's a guys and dolls thing. California's Proposition 8 vote proved that while Gays spent much time hating Bush's proposed constitutional amendment to define marriage, they should have hated more the Democrat (and Obama) position of putting the definition of marriage to a vote.

Most studies put the gay population in America at about 3%. So Obama wants to let the other 97% vote on whether gays should have equal rights? Brilliant. Nice job, Barack. Of course they'll lose the vote. By the way, Mr. President, will you be allowing white people to vote on black people's civil rights? Latinos to vote on Asians' civil rights?

On Gays in the Military Obama ran on desegregation. Now that he's President, he says he's "too busy right now." Too busy? There is a pending bill in Congress the Democrats can pass and then all it will take is the apparently time-consuming effort of signing his name. At least Bush never told gays he doesn't have time to care about them - Obama already has.

You have to wonder, if Obama's campaign slogan was, "I'm going to do what George Bush did, only bigger," would anyone have voted for him?

Memorial Day Tribute

Ida The Missing Link? No, But Mayor Bloomberg Is A Monkey’s Uncle

There’s a sucker born every minute, isn’t there?

 

With all the slickness of a Madison Avenue public relations blitz, some scientists used news organizations and celebrities like NY Mayor Michael Bloomberg to make misleading claims about a fossil dubbed “Ida.”  “Missing Link!”  “Missing Link!” they yelled.  They led the public to believe something new had been found.

 

If by “new” they meant this fossil was found more than 25 years ago, then yea.

 

It was originally broken up into two parts and sold for money. One part was faked into looking whole. The two parts have recently been reunited.  In a Courtroom there would be a slight “chain of custody” problem but in the world of archeology they aren’t so careful with “evidence.”

 

The only thing neat about this fossil is its age compared to how much of if is preserved.  It is 47 million years old and nearly all the bones, some fur and its last meal are visible.  That’s rare.

 

So why do I say this isn’t some “missing link” that proves humans and apes came from a common ancestor?  Why do I say this doesn’t prove the morphology claims in Darwinian theory?  Why do I disagree with Mayor Bloomberg and so many news delivery people on television?

 

Because the research report written by the scientists themselves says this isn’t a missing link.  It says this does not prove evolution between humans and earlier primates. They just don’t use language that Mayor Bloomberg or the average news anchor would understand when they make that admission.

 

Here is a quote lifted directly from the research paper issued about “Ida” (keep in mind Ida’s scientific name is Darwinius masillae):

 

“Note that Darwinius masillae, and adapoids contemporary with early tarsioids, could represent a stem group from which later anthropoid primates evolved, but we are not advocating this here, nor do we consider either Darwinius or adapoids to be anthropoids.”

 

So what is an “anthropoid primate?”  WE ARE!

 

Allow me to interpret what that quote means without the brain-numbing science lingo.  The researches say in their report they DO NOT take the position that humans evolved from the fossil Ida.  They DO NOT take that position, even if Mayor Bloomberg and your local news reporter do.

 

So why don’t the science authors step in and tell Bloomberg and news anchors to stop saying this is a missing link when their report says it isn’t?  Money, of course.

 

This announcement is accompanied by book and movie deals.  If Ida is just another monkey, who cares?  If she were really your great great great great grandmother, that would generate a lot of interest.

 

So the scientists will get plenty of fame and notoriety letting you be misled by non-scientists about Ida being a “missing link” while at the same time they have “plausible deniability” of that claim among fellow scientists.  They figure you’ll never catch on to their ruse because they bury their real findings in a report the average person likely will never read, masked in terms most won’t understand unless they look up the definition of each word (as I had to do).

 

This sort of chicanery isn’t new in the world of biological classification.  The science that puts species of animals into groups is fraught with disagreements from the very scientists who do it, starting from the founding of that discipline leading up to today.

 

The word “primate” actually translates to “the first.”  Primates were given that name because it was originally thought primates came first, a theory later abandoned.  It gets worse from there.

 

Biological classification has the inherent flaw of making the assumption that all life started from one being and evolved into every other life form on the planet today.  Therefore, if they find a lemur with a slightly different ankle bone than other lemurs (which is all Ida seems to be) that causes scientists to conclude that one ankle came first and morphed into the other. They simply aren’t allowed to have the thought that we started with two different animals who have different ankles.

 

Does Ida give us anything new on evolution?  No. Genus morphing? Still doesn’t exist.  Nothing’s changed, despite Mayor Bloomberg’s “sham-wow” hawking to the contrary.

 

Ida does not prove humans evolved from a common ancestor or from apes.  In other evolutionary news, Mayor Bloomberg appears to be a monkey’s uncle.

The Difference Between Memorial Day and Veteran's Day

This morning I read a post over at The Fox Forum, written by Lee Woodruff, wife of ABC newsman Bob Woodruff who was seriously injured in Iraq close to the beginning of the war.

Let me first honor Bob for his service to journalism and both he and Lee for their Foundation, found at www.Remind.org, which is a charitable organization helping injured service members returning from Iraq and Afghanistan.

In the post Lee seems to be confusing the purpose of Memorial Day, which is to honor those military members who have died, and Veterans Day, which is to honor all Veterans, alive or dead.

The post dares be a little confrontational, with an indictment of Americans in general by someone who stated, "Some of us went to war and the rest of America went shopping." 

I can forgive Lee the sentiment, first because of her family's sacrifice, and second because later in the post you realize she is trying to guilt us into giving money to her Foundation to help the troops.  The capitalist in me finds nothing wrong with a little creative salesmanship.  I hope you'll donate.

I do have a problem with Lee saying this:

"But how many of us truly pause on this holiday to think about the real meaning of the weekend.  How many of us this Memorial Day will stop to honor not only the veterans of previous wars, but the 1.65 million who have returned from the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan."

Lee should "truly pause on this holiday to think about the real meaning of the weekend."

Memorial Day was originally called "Decoration Day" and was enacted in 1868 to honor fallen Union servicemen by having flowers placed about their graves.

Here is the Order issued by the Army creating the observance:

I. The 30th day of May, 1868, is designated for the purpose of strewing with flowers, or otherwise decorating the graves of comrades who died in defense of their country during the late rebellion, and whose bodies now lie in almost every city, village and hamlet churchyard in the land. In this observance no form or ceremony is prescribed, but Posts and comrades will, in their own way arrange such fitting services and testimonials of respect as circumstances may permit.

We are organized, Comrades, as our regulations tell us, for the purpose among other things, "of preserving and strengthening those kind and fraternal feelings which have bound together the soldiers sailors and Marines, who united to suppress the late rebellion." What can aid more to assure this result than by cherishing tenderly the memory of our heroic dead? We should guard their graves with sacred vigilance. All that the consecrated wealth and taste of the nation can add to their adornment and security, is but a fitting tribute to the memory of her slain defenders. Let pleasant paths invite the coming and going of reverent visitors and fond mourners. Let no neglect, no ravages of time, testify to the present or to the coming generations that we have forgotten as a people the cost of a free and undivided republic.

If other eyes grow dull and other hinds slack, and other hearts cold in the solemn trust, ours shall keep it well as long as the light and warmth of life remain in us.

Let us, then, at the time appointed, gather around their sacred remains, and garland the passionless mounds above them with choicest flowers of springtime; let us raise above them the dear old flag they saved; let us in this solemn presence renew our pledge to aid and assist those whom they have left among us a sacred charge upon the Nation's gratitude—the soldier's and sailor's widow and orphan.

II. It is the purpose of the Commander in Chief to inaugurate this observance with the hope that it will be kept up from year to year, while a survivor of the war remains to honor the memory of his departed comrades. He earnestly desires the public press to call attention to this Order, and lend its friendly aid in bringing it to the notice of comrades in all parts of the country in time for simultaneous compliance therewith.

III. Department commanders will use every effort to make this Order effective.

The reason Veterans sell poppies on Memorial Day is a nod to the poem "In Flanders Field," which is about poppies growing in a cemetery were soldiers are buried.

Decoration Day was later changed to Memorial Day, likely in an effort to bring the South into the holiday.  It became a federal holiday by Statute in 1967.

Memorial Day is certainly about the soldiers who have left us, not the Vets who are still with us, as Lee Woodruff suggests.

Veterans Day grew out of the end of World War I on November 11, 1918, known as "the end of the war to end all wars."

In 1919 President Wilson declared "Armistice Day," but the focus was again on fallen soldiers:

"To us in America, the reflections of Armistice Day will be filled with solemn pride in the heroism of those who died in the country’s service and with gratitude for the victory, both because of the thing from which it has freed us and because of the opportunity it has given America to show her sympathy with peace and justice in the councils of the nations…"

In 1926 Congress weighed in with this resolution about Armistice Day:

Whereas the 11th of November 1918, marked the cessation of the most destructive, sanguinary, and far reaching war in human annals and the resumption by the people of the United States of peaceful relations with other nations, which we hope may never again be severed, and

Whereas it is fitting that the recurring anniversary of this date should be commemorated with thanksgiving and prayer and exercises designed to perpetuate peace through good will and mutual understanding between nations; and

Whereas the legislatures of twenty-seven of our States have already declared November 11 to be a legal holiday: Therefore be it Resolved by the Senate (the House of Representatives concurring), that the President of the United States is requested to issue a proclamation calling upon the officials to display the flag of the United States on all Government buildings on November 11 and inviting the people of the United States to observe the day in schools and churches, or other suitable places, with appropriate ceremonies of friendly relations with all other peoples.

Armistice Day became a legal holiday in 1938.

In 1954, at the urging of Veterans groups, the 1938 law was amended to strike out the word "Armistice" and replace it with the word "Veterans," thus giving rise to our current November holiday to honor Veterans.

While I tip my hat to Lee Woodruff for her efforts, it remains true that history and tradition are important to America and we can't lose site of them.  That's part of what the military fights for.

Happy Memorial Day weekend.  Leave a flower on the grave of a Vet this weekend, or buy a poppy from a Vet when shopping.

Guns To Be Allowed In National Parks. You Eyeing My Picnic Basket? Make My Day, Yogi!

Not surprising that the New York Times article mostly covers how much liberals like Barbara Boxer don't like it.

Even when conservatives win on a gun issue, the NY Times can't bear to write about it without having the article be more about the detractors than the winners.

Democrats Learning the Vagaries of Defining Torture

Then Jesus said to him: “Put your sword back into its sheath, for all who take the sword will perish by the sword.” Matthew 26:52

The Democrats should have realized when they so frequently and falsely accused the Republican government of “torture!” that when they took over the government, they would have to face the allegation also.

Career Intelligence officers, as Ms. Pelosi is slowly learning, are non-partisan.  They fight our enemies no matter whose name is on the White House mailbox, and they don’t lie to Congress, or torture people.

How ironic that the “torture!” allegation, designed by Democrats as campaign rhetoric to make Republicans look bad, is now making Democrats look worse.  Live by the sword…

For several years the Democrats, aided by media, did make Republicans look bad with the “torture!” cry.  The media never bothered to print the real story from the perspective of the President and the men and women of our Intelligence Services who were charged with interrogating the bad guys.

The real story was that the Bush Administration, going all the way back to the Gonzalez memo, was not asking for legal opinions on whether various techniques were torture so that they would be allowed to torture.  They were asking for legal clarification to make sure they didn’t torture.

To understand the difference, one must consider the vagary, the uncertainty, of what is or is not “torture” as defined by International Law.

How easy it would be if there were two lists of interrogation techniques, one headed “These Things Are Torture” and the other headed “These Things Are Not Torture.”

Unfortunately, no such lists exist.  Instead, the Geneva Conventions give an ambiguous, uncertain definition of torture, without even an attempt to state “These techniques are torture” or “These techniques are not torture.”  The same is true of United Nations Conventions.

President Bush tried his best to bring some clarity to the definition of what interrogations are and are not torture.  Why did he bother?  Well, for a very important reason.

The more vague a law is, the better chance a prosecutor has of convincing a jury that a whole wide range of behaviors are covered by it.  That’s why vague laws are bad laws – because no one really knows how to follow them.

For instance, let’s use an example a usually vague law that is found in municipalities all over America.  Assume a law says, “Thou shall not be noisy after 10:00 pm.” Would you really know how to follow it?  What’s “noisy?”  Ten decibels?  Twenty-five decibels?  Fifty decibels?

Worse than you not knowing how to follow it, the vagueness gives the prosecutor a very wide berth to convict you, because the jury is going to be allowed to pick what is noisy – five decibels, twenty-five decibels or fifty.  Three different juries can say three different things and all be right.

That allows prejudices to enter the courtroom.  Don’t like the defendant?  Let’s convict him using a ten-decibel standard for noise. Defendant seems like a swell guy?  Let him off the hook under a fifty-decibel standard.

Assume instead a law that says, “Thou shall not be louder than 25 decibels after 10:00 pm.” You will know how to follow it, and a jury will have no room for prejudice in their verdict – it’s either 25 decibels or it isn’t.  In criminal law vagueness is bad, specificity is good.

Unfortunately, the Geneva and UN Conventions are as vague as a local noise ordinance about what is torture.  The following is the definition from Geneva, which you will notice lists no interrogation techniques - not water boarding or putting a caterpillar in a terrorists’ cell to scare him:

(a) Violence to life and person, in particular murder of all kinds, mutilation, cruel treatment and torture;

(b) Taking of hostages;

(c) Outrages upon personal dignity, in particular, humiliating and degrading treatment;

(d) The passing of sentences and the carrying out of executions without previous judgment pronounced by a regularly constituted court affording all the judicial guarantees which are recognized as indispensable by civilized peoples.

(By the way the above applies to "High Contracting Parties" to the Geneva Conventions, which al-Qaeda is not).

Here is how the UN defines torture:

“…the term "torture" means any act by which severe pain or suffering, whether physical or mental, is intentionally inflicted on a person for such purposes as obtaining from him or a third person information or a confession, punishing him for an act he or a third person has committed or is suspected of having committed, or intimidating or coercing him or a third person, or for any reason based on discrimination of any kind, when such pain or suffering is inflicted by or at the instigation of or with the consent or acquiescence of a public official or other person acting in an official capacity. It does not include pain or suffering arising only from, inherent in or incidental to lawful sanctions.”

(By the way, al-Qaeda is not a member of the UN, so they won’t follow the Convention).

Neither Convention lists water boarding or any other interrogation technique.  However, Geneva makes “degrading” treatment torture and the UN says “intimidation” is torture.

That means a jury can, like Democrats did, say that “torture!” can be as little as calling someone a name, because it’s “degrading” (you dirty dog) or telling him tomorrow he may be punished, because it’s “intimidation.”

President Bush understood that if our military members, from Generals on down ever found themselves before one of these Courts, they could be convicted of “torture!” even if they didn’t do anything wrong.

If you think that could never happen, consider that Spain, a NATO ally, is trying to indict six members of the Bush Administration and Dick Cheney was indicted by a Court – in Texas.

Imagine some Kangaroo International Court consisting of juries of Islamo-fascists trying our military men.  That’s exactly why President Bush wouldn’t join the International Criminal Court, and neither will President Obama.

The allegation of “torture!” was never a real issue.  It was a campaign tool for the Democrats.  So thirsty for a taste of White House water were Democrats that they did not care if an allegation of “torture!” – false as it was – would harm the President.  So power hungry were Democrats that they did not care if the allegation of “torture!”  would cause others to harm our troops in retribution.

Now Democrats have the burden of interrogating the bad guys and securing our military.  So now their rhetoric is changing.

They don’t want to get caught in the campaign misrepresentations they made about Republicans, lest they find themselves before a Kangaroo Court.  That’s why at his last presser, President Obama refused to say when asked that the Bush Administration violated International Laws against torture.  He would only say they violated “our values.”  That’s why he wouldn’t release the interrogation photos – to avoid an allegation that the treatment was  “degrading” or “intimidating” and therefore “torture!”

Nancy Pelosi would be wise to finally admit the truth that President Obama is finally admitting - America never tortured.

Obama Asks Catholics To Be A Little Bit Pregnant

Yesterday's speech by the President at Notre Dame started with a swipe at the Catholics who didn't want him to come.  He said to University President Father Jenkins, "Your continued and courageous - and contagious - commitment to honest, thoughtful dialogue is an inspiration to us all."

 

"Dialogue" Mr. President? Forty people were arrested yesterday who wanted a "dialogue" with you. Your speech was a monologue. Despite your posturing, it's clear the last thing you want is a dialogue on abortion. The President said as much: "You'll hear talking heads scream on cable, and you'll read blogs that claim definitive knowledge, and you will watch politicians pretend they know what they're talking about."

 

The President does not want you watching debates on cable television. You are not to read what you fellow Americans have to say on their personal blogs. You must not even consider the words of your local elected officials. You will only listen to the monologue of your dear leader.

 

The President offered nothing in furthering the human condition relative to abortion. Instead, he hovered in the safe zone of telling people to be nice to one another when talking about it. Oh how brave of him to tackle head-on an issue so fraught with derision and emotion that is having good manners.

 

All of his sugary talk about treating people well was completely out of place when viewed from the little eyes of the babies abortion doctors kill. Look at some of these Obama quotes at Notre Dame from the babies' point of view:

 

 "We too often seek advantage over others."   Yes we do, by hiring abortionists to stick knives in peoples' brains.

 

 "Too many of us view life only through the lens of immediate self-interest and crass materialism; in which the world is necessarily a zero-sum game."

 

If by "too many of us" Mr. President you mean parents who kill their children because they might interfere with their career path, then I agree too many of us think with immediate self-interest.

 

"The strong too often dominate the weak, and too many of those with wealth and with power find all manner of justification for their own privilege in the face of poverty and injustice."

 

How dare you speak these words, Mr. President, when it is YOU who took my tax dollars to abort babies in other countries. It is YOU who is the strong and YOU who is using my wealth to dominate the weak.

 

 He noted all major religions have "...the Golden Rule — the call to treat one another as we wish to be treated." 

 

Ok, raise your hand if you wish to be treated to an abortion doctor stabbing a sharp tool through your skull and sucking out your brain. Anybody? No hands? Anybody?"

 

The President spoke of  "...our willingness to shoulder each other's burdens..."  Compare that to his campaign rhetoric when he favored abortion because a pregnant girl is "punished" when she has her baby. Doesn't sound like a call to face obligations to me.

 

In speaking of equal rights, The President said, "Brown [vs Board of Education] was of course the first major step in dismantling the "separate but equal" doctrine, but it would take a number of years and a nationwide movement to fully realize the dream of civil rights for all of God's children."

 

PLEASE PLEASE explain to me, Mr Obama, how you, in your own words, are one of "God's Children" yet the unborn child is not? Does God get involved only after the second trimester?

 

The President was completely cowardly on embryonic stem cell research: "Those who speak out against stem cell research may be rooted in an admirable conviction about the sacredness of life, but so are the parents of a child with juvenile diabetes who are convinced that their son's or daughter's hardships can be relieved."

 

 All he does is set up the two adversaries against one another, while refusing to risk an answer. Nor will he ever. The discussion on embryonic stem cell research eventually leads to a question its proponents can't bear to answer: "If you were sick, would you kill another to save yourself?" Instead they deny the relevance of the question, exactly as Josef Mengele did as he experimented on and killed humans in the name of medical research.

 

On resolving the issue of legalized abortion, the President asked Catholics to compromise their Catholic principles. He started by asking them to be uncertain about their religion: "Remember, too, that the ultimate irony of faith is that it necessarily admits doubt." Yes, Catholics, doubt your religion's belief in the sanctity of life. Follow dear leader and start killing children.

 

He said, "..when we open up our hearts and our minds to those who may not think precisely like we do or believe precisely what we believe — that's when we discover at least the possibility of common ground."

 

How, Mr. President, does one find "common ground" when the result is life or death? Can someone be a little bit alive or a little bit dead? Can a woman be a little bit pregnant? To hell with your fluffy, Rodney King-like wails of "can't we all just get along?" The answer is no. I have no desire to get along with you while you are killing innocent babies.

 

Then, returning to his election rhetoric that we the people "cling to our religion" for reasons other than belief, he made the blasphemous allegation that Christianity is contrary to reason:

 

"And within our vast democracy, this doubt should remind us even as we cling to our faith to persuade through reason, through an appeal whenever we can to universal rather than parochial principles..."

 

How nice of the media to give dear leader a pass on that terrible assertion this morning.

 

The President continued, "How does each of us remain firm in our principles, and fight for what we consider right, without, as Father John said, demonizing those with just as strongly held convictions on the other side?"

 

Since allowing an abortion doctor to crush a baby's skull with a hammer IS demonic Mr. President, you're demonizing yourself. Don't project your problem on me.

 

There was a misrepresentation the President told at Notre Dame. While the lenghts he will go to fool us is laughable, the evil he covers with his lie is no laughing matter: "Maybe we won't agree on abortion, but we can still agree that this heart-wrenching decision for any woman is not made casually..."

 

This is the second time I heard him say women don't have abortions "casually." 50,000,000 abortions have occurred since Roe v Wade. That's one-sixth of our current population. The frequency bespeaks that the killing of children has become casual. Kill 15% of the population in Rwanda or Darfur and the Press and Hollywood might care; when its American children they don't care. I suggest President Obama read Roe v Wade where the Court lists the reasons to have an abortion to see just how casually the decision is made.

 

Then he moved on to the "conscience clause." He said: "Let's honor the conscience of those who disagree with abortion, and draft a sensible conscience clause..."

 

Sensible? What the President speaks of there is the issue of Catholic doctors being able to refuse to do abortions, and Catholic pharmacists being able to refuse to sell contraceptives or the "morning after pill" consistent with their faith. He wants the power, drafted in a law, to tell Catholic doctors what the extent of their conscious will be, and in what circumstance they are allowed to use their religious beliefs.

 

Careful, Mr. President. If you start legislating religious beliefs, you invite the same insurrection King George faced.

Notre Dame Protests Ought to Be Violent

"He said to them...one who does not have a sword, should sell his cloak and buy one." Jesus Christ, Luke 22:36

Violence at Notre Dame? Provocative headline, for sure. In the spirit of President Obama and Notre Dame's President Father Jenkins, who claim now is the time to hear alternative views, read this one. It's about waging a just fight from the example of Jesus and the teachings of the Catholic Church. Don't be closed-minded and judge the headline. Read on.

When Jesus told his disciples to sell their very clothes to buy swords, he was asking them to be prepared for an evil that was coming, which was His betrayal and arrest later that night. His reference to "sword" was a metaphor for spiritual strength, which He expects us to use in a fight. We know that for several reasons - When the apostles pointed out they already had two swords, He yelled, " It is enough!." Jesus set the example of spiritual strength by then entering the garden and praying intensely. That was His "sword." The apostles still didn't understand, so when the crowd came to arrest Jesus, an apostle struck and cut off the ear of one of them. Jesus said, "Stop! No more of this!" He then healed the man's ear. He said to the crowd, "Have you come out as against a robber, with swords and clubs?"

Isn't that how the abortion doctor comes for the innocent, with swords and clubs? Many abortions are performed by thrusting a sword through the skull of the innocent child, while others involve the abortionist smashing the skull of the baby with a club until the innocent is dead.

Abortion is not an academic exercise of constitutional interpretation. It is not a cold war. It is a hot war. People are being killed, and Caesar is not only allowing the deaths, he is promoting them.

Can Catholics continue forever to respond to abortions with reason, science, argument and spirituality when the other side is engaged in mindless, brutal violence? Is there some point where both Jesus and the Catholic Church tell us defense requires some physical response? Yes.

Let's start with the example of Jesus from John 3:13-22.

He went to the Temple in Jerusalem, and found the Temple had been turned into a marketplace while the money changers were charging a price to hear priests speak of God. Jesus fashioned a whip out of cords. Extraordinary. The Lord Jesus created a tool to for a physical confrontation. He chased the marketeers from the temple with His whip, and turned over the tables of the money changers. This was not an act of pacifism.

Jesus turned physical because he found it so abhorrent that people were being hurt by money changes blocking them from God. Does anyone doubt that Jesus would feel worse about the abortionist, who hurts people by denying them the very life God gave them? There is no record of Jesus touching anyone with His whip so physical violence against people is not His example. It is high time though that we Catholics turn over a few tables, or perhaps a Graduation Ceremony's speaker's dais.

Let's look at the teaching of the Catholic Church, as contained in the Catechism. The Church goes further than Christ's example and finds there is a time for physical action, in furtherance of what is called the "Just War."

Let's examine the four prerequisites for a "Just War" to see if abortion triggers its application:

- the damage inflicted by the aggressor on the nation or community of nations must be lasting, grave, and certain;

The damage inflicted by abortion aggressors since 1973 is 50 million dead innocent American children. That damage on our nation is "lasting, grave and certain."  Were it Rwanda or Darfur the Press and Hollywood might care.

- all other means of putting an end to it must have been shown to be impractical or ineffective;

Just as the Pope is infallible on Catholic Doctrine by the simple fact that there is no higher authority on earth to appeal to, so is the Supreme Court infallible on American Constitutional Law, as there is no higher earthly authority on law to appeal to. Reasoning with abortionists has proved ineffective, as they have put a stop to the debate.

- there must be serious prospects of success;

All I ask of the Notre Dame students and protesters is to take control of the dais, just as Jesus took control of the Temple. Don't allow the President to monologue (a speech is not a dialogue, Father Jenkins). The prospect of success is serious, since the Secret Service will not let the President occupy an unsecured stage.

- the use of arms must not produce evils and disorders graver than the evil to be eliminated.

This is the easy one. Arms will not be used - not even Jesus' whip. No reasonable person can compare interrupting Barack Obama from speaking to the evil of killing 50 million children.

If Barack Obama and Father Jenkins wish to bring attention to the issues, there will be no better way for Catholics to get the attention of the world than by taking back their own stage and stopping the President from speaking. That'll get people talking. Let the world know for sure that Catholics won't allow the glory of life to be reduced to, or judged by, a mere essay question on a bar exam.

What risk is there of misinterpretation by the Secret Service leading to a Kent State style shooting?  No risk at all so long as we let them know first what's coming.  The stage will have to be taken by protesters before The President gets to it, and not yielded until he leaves the campus.

It is the personality of social left-wing protesters to be physically violent toward people and destructive toward property during their protests, as they do at World Trade Organization meetings.  That sort of lunacy is not advisable.  Taking the stage however is the very least Catholics can do in response to the killing of innocents, and follows the example of Jesus in the Temple.

The moral high-ground will be maintained for this small act of aggressiveness, particularly when compared to the aggression depicted in photos of dead babies with ruptured brains and stomachs from abortions.

We know from Luke 6:29 to sometimes passively turn the other cheek.  But no one was ever killed by a slap, so that's inapposite as a response to abortion.  When the enemy begins taking your flesh, we are guided by Exodus 21:23, "eye for eye, tooth for tooth, hand for hand, foot for foot, burn for burn, wound for wound, stripe for stripe."

Friday "Fail Photo" Fun

see more pwn and owned pictures

Community Organizer Finally Becomes President Concerning Military Photos

It appears the maturation of Barack Obama from protester to President is finally underway.  Too bad it took the responsibility of office to make him start thinking responsibly.

 

It is being reported that the President is reversing a prior decision, and will no longer allow the Pentagon to release photographs of prisoners being interrogated.

 

Note well:  The pictures will likely show interrogations, NOT TORTURE.  There is no doubt that those people whose knee-jerk reaction is to blame America where she holds no blame will claim the pictures show torture, even if they don’t.  There’s no convincing them anyway.

 

Do you hear that sound?  That’s the sound of deflating expectations of those on the far-left who thought Barack Obama would do anything to make the Bush Administration look bad.  They thought that he would do anything to make our Military look bad.  Who can blame them? His campaign rhetoric made them believe it.

 

What they (and the President) didn’t count on was that once Obama became President, the truth his conservative detractors were telling him would catch up to him:  A President has to be on the side of his own military, not a detractor of it.

 

Here is the President’s position on releasing these photos:

 

"But the president strongly believes that the release of these photos, particularly at this time, would only serve the purpose of inflaming the theaters of war, jeopardizing U.S. forces, and making our job more difficult in places like Iraq and Afghanistan."

 

Interesting.  Sounds like something Bush would say.

 

Not once that I can recall did Barack Obama say the same about the release of the original Abu Ghraib photos.  Where was his concern for the reaction against our military then?  He didn’t soft soap those photos while Bush was President.  Instead he jumped on the “America Tortures” left-wing bandwagon to get himself elected, even if it meant our soldiers were to be damned to new attacks over his phony claims.

 

Community Organizers come from the protesting class. They will make reckless claims with slanted facts, half-truths and even downright lies to get what they want on the limited issue they presently care about.

 

An elected President has to have a far broader vision of things.  He has to consider all sides of a matter, and make decisions with the knowledge that his goals are everyone’s goals, not just the goals of a limited wacky constituency who got him elected (and today are surely regretting it).

 

Finally – we see a sign that “President” Barack Obama has arrived.  About time.

Notre Dame Alums Opposing Obama's Speech

Notre Dame Students Opposing Obama's Speech

Today's "Media Covers For Obama's Failure" Story

Good grief. 

Doesn't anyone realize how dangerous it is when a country has no independent media, instead having a "state media" who thinks their job is to make the government look good? 

If you think I'm exaggerating, let's not forget Chris Matthews admitting he's in the tank for Obama:

Now take a read of this column from Reuters. Let's start with the headline:

"U.S. stimulus to save 3.5 million jobs by end 2010: official"

Take a look at that last word there - "official."

It's a noun.  It's a common noun. You find that out when you read the article and it turns out it refers to "an Official." 

The decision not to capitalize the word was made in hopes some readers who just browse headlines would think it was not a noun, but an adjective, as in  "It's official." The reader would think some detailed report was issued finding Obama's plan will save 3.5 million jobs, and, just so you Republicans out there can't argue the point - "it's official!"

While common nouns are usually not capitalized, in a headline that is only the case when talking about a group.  Like doctors. The exception is when you are taking about someone specific, as in, "I talked to my Doctor."

This was a pronouncement by one person, so the headline should have capitalized "Official" to avoid the noun/adjective confusion.  But that confusion is what Reuters was counting on.

If you think I'm nit-picking, let's get to the rest of the article.

Notice how the Obama rhetoric, now adopted by media, has changed from "creating jobs" to "saving jobs."  The difference of course is created jobs you can count.  If we started with 100 jobs, and after the Stimulus bill we have 110 jobs, Obama can make the argument he created 10 jobs, although he can't really be sure all 10 jobs were related to stimulus spending.

But what happens when you start with 100 jobs and end up with 100 jobs?  Will the Obama administration admit the Stimulus was a failure that did nothing but give money to groups like ACORN and buy hybrid cars for bureaucrats?  Don't count on it.

The Obama administration, and the media, will simply claim they "saved" 10 jobs.  Sure the numbers show we started with 100 and ended with 100 jobs, but had they not interfered, we'd only have 90 jobs!

The problem with that argument is there is simply no way to prove or disprove it.  To claim it is speculation, but the media will NEVER call Obama out for it.

How do I know that? If you read this Reuter's piece, Obama is up to something more sinister and the Press is helping him.

According to the article, the new data shows instead of creating 3.5 million jobs, and instead "saving" 3.5 million jobs, the economy is actually going to lose jobs!

So, according to the "official Official" from the Obama administration, whatever the job loss is going to be, there would have been 3.5 million more jobs lost if, you know, Obama hadn't taken the bold economic step of building a mafia museum for Harry Reid in Nevada.

Check out how Reuters and the Obama team spin it:

"The Obama administration's fiscal stimulus plan will meet previous estimates to save 3.5 million U.S. jobs by the end of 2010, but the unemployment rate at that time may be higher due to further deterioration in the economy, a senior administration official said on Monday."

Good. Grief.

If there were any honesty at all at Reuters and in the Administration, the headline would have been:

"Stimulus Plan Will Lose American Jobs by 2010: Official"

The rest of the article would have been about what a big government, typical Democrat power/money grab Obama's anti-Stimulus plan is and will continue to be, now through 2010. 

As the Reuter's column points out, Obama wants to do it again, which is why he and Reuters are trying to paint this bad news as good news.  They think they can sucker you into it again.

 

Injunction Issued Stopping Media Interviews of Joe The Plumber!

_______________________________________________________________

In re:                                                  ) Superior Court, Vulgi Opinio

                                                          )

Matter of Joe The Plumber                  )

                                                          ) Docket No: 00001-09

                                                          )

                                                          ) Order For Media to Cease & Desist

                                                          ) All Interviews with Joe the Plumber

                                                          )

_______________________________________________________________

This matter, being opened to the Court by the rank and file Conservatives and Republicans of the United States of America, seeking an injunction against the media so they may henceforth be restrained from interviewing one “Joe The Plumber,” and the Court having considered the matter and for good cause having been shown,

 

It is on this 11^th Day of May, 2009 found as follows:

 

Whereas, Joe the Plumber once asked Barack Obama a question on a rope line; and

 

Whereas, There was nothing particularly insightful or probing about the question, although Obama slipped a telling answer; and

 

Whereas, it appeared that “Joe the Plumber” fit the mold of just a regular guy; and

 

Whereas, regular guys are to be accorded a certain amount of deference and respect by the media; and

 

Whereas, Joe the Plumber has since that time excessively sought media appearances with all the desperation and reckless abandon of a prostitute in need of rent money; and

 

Whereas, Joe the Plumber has voluntarily relinquished his “regular guy” status in favor of being a pundit, allowing him to now be judged on the same high standards as other media pundits; and

 

Whereas, Joe the Plumber made a fool of himself in an attempt to be a foreign war-correspondent, himself having been taken advantage of by a media group that never should have put an unskilled journalist in a skilled position for the sake of bringing attention to themselves; and

 

Whereas, Joe the Plumber thoroughly insulted American military troops when he said journalists should ignore them and their glorious mission; and

 

Whereas, Joe the Plumber, despite his recent claim he is leaving the Republican Party was in fact barely in the Party, it being reported he recently joined the Republicans and actually self-identified for many years as a member of the left of center Natural Law Party; and

 

Whereas, Joe the Plumber also revealed he knows nothing of American Conservatism since his Natural Law Party wishes to keep Abortion legal; and

 

Whereas, Joe the Plumber proved he knows nothing about the Republican Party by his recent bigoted comments that gays and lesbians should not be allowed around children. Joe the Plumber fails to understand that acknowledging the equality of people who are like you is easy, but the Republican Party was founded in 1854 on the more courageous principle of ensuring equality for people who are unlike you; and

 

Whereas, Joe the Plumber’s desire that individual States be allowed to vote on whether Americans have civil rights reveals not only that he knows nothing of Constitutional Conservatism and Federalism, but also reveals he makes the same mistake the Democratic Party has made for years; and

 

Whereas, Joe the Plumber also proved he knows nothing of the Republican Party by his allegation in Christianity Today magazine that the party “uses God as a Punch line.”  Joe the Plumber’s Natural Law Party is the political arm of the late Mahareshi Mehesh Yogi, a Hindu transcendentalist. It appears Joe the Plumber abandoned his own Christianity for politics, making his finger pointing at others hypocritical; and

 

Whereas, Joe the Plumber revealed what little he knows of Christianity by asserting he will run for office when God tells him to do it, which denies the main tenant of Christianity that the greatest gift God gave us was free will to choose our own path; and

 

Whereas, American Conservatives and Republicans have constantly been the victim of a dirty trick by media, who interview fake Conservatives and phonies posing as Republicans to make us look bad, like Andrew Sullivan (voted for Kerry and Obama), Meghan McCain (voted for Kerry, joined the Republicans one year ago for obvious self-interested reasons and has bashed us ever since) and Arlen Specter (‘nuff said).  We have no need for Joe the Plumber also acting as a useful idiot and straw man so left-wing media can misrepresent who we are; and

 

Therefore, we the rank and file American Conservatives and Republicans Order as follows:

 

That all media members be and hereby are permanently restrained and enjoined from ever interviewing Joe the Plumber again, instead calling him only when a broken toilet urgently needs his attention.

                                                

                                              So Ordered, by:

          

                                              Rank and file American Conservatives and Republicans     

 

Obama is the WORST Speaking President Ever!

How many times am I going to have to point it out before the late night comedians start making fun of him for it?  Will they ever?  If Obama were a Republican this clip would be part of his resume already:

They may not be laughing at you Obama, but I am! I'm laughing at you like these guys:

 

Oh, and these guys:

 

Friday "Fail Photo" Fun

The Saudi "Miss Beautiful Morals" Contest an MSNBC Favorite

That radical, far-left, anti-American hate group commonly known as MSNBC is reporting today about a beauty contest in Saudi Arabia. 

The head to toe Burka is going to disappoint those who buy a ticket for the swimsuit portion of the show.

Here is one of the contestants:

 Hot.

Since they can't judge outer beauty, the organizers claim they will judge inner beauty, by judging the morals of the women.

"The idea of the pageant is to measure the contestants' commitment to Islamic morals... It's an alternative to the calls for decadence in the other beauty contests that only take into account a woman's body and looks," said pageant founder

 Khadra al-Mubarak.

Of course MSNBC has to take a little shot at America.  Apparantly the need for this pageant is all our fault for influencing their culture.  This is from the article:

"The Miss Beautiful Morals pageant is the latest example of conservative Muslims co-opting Western-style formats to spread their message in the face of the onslaught of foreign influences flooding the region through the Internet and satellite television."

"Onslaught."  Interesting word. 

Let's celebrate Islamic morals when it come to women, shall we?  Take a look at a video of this woman getting her public punishment for violating the morals of Sharia Law.  Her "immoral act" was being seen with a man without a chaperone:

 

Hey girls, here's a tip: Don't answer the gay marriage question.

American Homes Lose $700B in 1st Quarter. Nice Job, Bush and Obie

It is being reported today that 1 out of every 5 Americans are upside down in their homes right now.  That means they owe more on the house than it is worth, so they can't even sell it to get out. If they run into payment problems, they will lose their life savings even if they file for bankruptcy, because Congress won't pass a law that allows Bankruptcy judges to adjust the principal to save the home.

These aren't just people who took sub-prime mortgages they couldn't afford. The horrid economy affects everyone. Many good and hard-working small business owners who bought their homes when they were making good money have been crushed and now can't pay their mortgages either. 

Why are the mortgage lenders so special? Bankruptcy judges are permitted to adjust the terms of every other type of loan, but the lobby-rich bank and mortgage companies have their very own exception built into federal law.

So the existing state of the law is that if "you the people" get into financial trouble, you can go to hell.  Going to lose your life savings?  Suck it up, individual capitalists.  Start over.  Adversity builds character and is good for the soul, or something like that.

Unless you are a bank, mortgage company or car company.  That tough guy, rugged individualist, pull yourself up by your own bootstraps American way of life doesn't apply to you.  You are "too big to fail" even if the sleeping jackasses over at the Department of Justice Anti-Trust Unit are supposed to sue companies before they obtain so much market share they become "too big to fail." 

Does anyone really believe any of the companies we've bailed out are "too big to fail?"  They simply have friends in D.C. who are too big for us to stop them from bailing out their campaign donors.

None of those companies are so connected to the national interest that their demise would be the fall of America. That the Anti-Trust Unit never sued any of them over market share is either proof that they weren't too big to fail, or that the Anti-Trust Unit is the laziest bunch of lawyer-bureaucrats on the planet and they should all be fired.

What a disgusting reality:  A taxpayer gut-punched by the economy is in foreclosure.  Tough on him.  The bank foreclosing on him gets gut-punched by the economy The government takes what little money the taxpayer has left, gives it to his bank under the TARP program, so the bank can continue the foreclosure against him using his own money. 

What an insult to America's founding principle that people are important.  They've been replaced on the importance scale by banks, as was the case in 1930's Italy and Germany. Smells like fodder for a new Revolution, not just a tea party.

In the first quarter of 2009 American home values have dropped $700 billion.

Interesting number.

$700 Billion was the amount of the Bush TARP plan that recapitalized banks to continue foreclosures without recapitalizing the foreclosed homeowners.

$787 Billion is the amount of Obama's Stimulus plan, which does nothing to recapitalize the foreclosed taxpayer, instead taking his money and buying new cars for government bureaucrats and funding a Mafia Museum for Speaker Harry Reid in Nevada.

The net effect of Bush and Obama taking all that taxpayer money and giving it to government and big companies was that American home values have dropped $700 Billion in three months.

Nice job, Corporatist bastards.  I hope they both fail.

The Obama Change Index

Check out the new weekly feature at Foxnews.com.

My comments are in the Law & Justice section.

Find it here:    http://tinyurl.com/djzuk3

Happy Cinco de Quattro!!!!!!!!

Good grief. 

Ay carrumba!

How many times am I going to have to point out how terrible Barack Obama is at public speaking?

If George Bush made such a gaffe, not only would the mainstream media play it incessantly, he would be accused by the left of cross-cultural ignorance and flat out racism.

Barack Obama:  Worst speaking president we've ever had.

If I Made A Fictional Movie Called "Ron Howard: Horses Arse" Would He Let Me Film It In His House?

Poor Ron Howard.  The Vatican hurt his feelings. 

Ron wanted to film his fictional movies that make Catholics look bad on Catholic property, and they didn't welcome him with open arms.

Read about that here: http://tinyurl.com/dktmde



Sit on it, Richie!

Friday Fail Photo Fun

a href="http://failblog.org/2009/04/28/going-green-fail/">
see more pwn and owned pictures