Positively Republican puts it well:
The guy accused of extra-marital affairs (and vehemently denies the accusations) drops out to endorse the guy who admits to extra-marital affairs.
People immediately jumped all over Cain due to his issues with other women. No one really wants to think about Newt and other women. But it all goes back to the denial factor. People just don’t like being lied to. If Clinton had owned up to Lewinski, there would have been no real story. People would have laughed it off and that would have been the end of it. People didn’t care at all that when Clinton was running and he had sexual harassment suits out the wazoo. That’s what eventually led to Clinton’s “other woman” problems as well. It got to be such an issue that it was never about the lies to cover it up, it was “all about sex”. Anyone over 40 remember that line? Fast forward about 20 years, Cain gets into pretty much exactly the same predicament. Except of course, there’s no lawsuits at this point in time, just a bunch of accusations. But, I haven’t heard “it’s all about sex” one single time. I haven’t heard a word from Hillary about the “vast right-wing conspiracy”.
For some reason none of that applies for Herman Cain.
Anyone care to guess why?
Bet it’s the “R” word.
I’m not defending Cain, I’m chastising media. Ethics is not a one-party issue.
Never was.
Looks like I’m going to have to give Obama an assist. We’ve had TARP, we’ve had job creation legislation, and we’ve still got unemployment at really bad levels. So, just send you’re economic advisors here and I’ll fix that pesky unemployment problem. We’ll take it day by day, but I think after a few stabs at this you’ll figure my system out and be able to run with it.
First of all, the headline:
And here’s the sage economic advice: If a contract is let using federal dollars, put a requirement in there that some percentage of it be manufactured in the US.
I’m sure the insight has someone in DC stunned. Simply requiring a domestic corporation submit a bid is amazingly naive. $5.4 million of silverware I imagine would keep some local peeps busy for a while. The key word here being local. Local peeps pay US taxes, Swedes don’t.
But what really bugs me is a huge percentage of federal money went to the Clunker program which was in large degree Japanese. Now, some stimulus money is going to Sweden for no other reason than some petty preference. This is why so many people know that the stimulus is a farce. Our economy is too big to need a push. What it needs more than anything is to quit having to complete with its federal government propping up foreign competition while taxing the hell out of them.
Well, actually, that was going to be tomorrow’s lesson.
I’m seeing a lot of stuff about how people are now expecting a lot of Republicans to follow in the footsteps of Scott Brown. Seems like a rather simple plan to me:
- Pose naked for Cosmo.
- Smile a lot, sincerely.
- Crank out a couple of smoking hot daughters.
- Smile a lot, sincerely.
- Have at least one of them do a very popular reality show.
- Smile a lot, sincerely.
- Wear designer suits, perfect hair, and drive a truck.
- Smile a lot, sincerely.
- Be the absolute polar opposite of a life-long incumbent who recently died.
- Smile a lot, sincerely.
- Make sure and get a completely clueless opponent. Preferably one who is clueless about some local legend.
- Smile a lot, sincerely.
- Get the incumbent President of the United States to stump for your opponent. People like past presidents. It’s just the incumbents that are campaign killers.
- Smile a lot, sincerely.
- Keep an eye on the news. Support issues where polling has shown increased support, and keep quiet on those where the polling is going down. ( That’s called trending. People who join with you on the way up tend to stick with you. Those on the way down jump like rats on the Titanic. )
- Smile a lot, sincerely.
If you can pull all that off, you’ll win every single time. If you just pull off #16 you’ll have a fighting chance anywhere. I have believed my entire life that X percent of all votes are for the most attractive and confident looking candidate. That’s not a gender thing. Hillary, McCain, and Obama all smiled a lot. Hillary looked forced, McCain looked pained, Obama looked like he really was enjoying the whoopin he was dishing out. In Massachusetts, Coakley looked like she was not enjoying the race. People just don’t get excited about someone that is not excited. Brown looked like he was having a blast being the underdog.
Now, a lot of Republican pundits are saying it’s all about health care, the economy, Obama’s crazed liberal socialist policies, and whatnot that a Republican candidate can not control. What they can control is their own image. Just keep on smiling. Issues will change, attitudes will change, the economy will change. What will never change is people supporting an exciting candidate. Stick to the core philosophies of the Republican Party ( anyone remember those? ), and be something the voters want to look at for the next two, four, or six years. Or longer.
In March, Hillary Clinton met with Sergei Lavrov and gave him a button labeled “overload”. She laughed, he laughed, they agreed to to pursue replacing the 1991 START agreement. AP and Reuters talked about how hard they were pursuing it. Now, the thing about it all is START was signed by Russia. Russia then collapsed about four months later. The ensuing individual countries had varying degrees of nuclear arsenal. Several countries wanted no0thing to do with nuclear weapons, and the expense of maintaining them, and destroyed their stocks completely. Call that a START success if you want, I call it a local economical decision. Basically all that was left with nuclear weapons was what was left of Russia. And, that was a load. In December 2001, the United States and Russia announced they had reached the desired start levels of 6,000 warheads. Over the ensuing years tension grew between Putin/Medvedev over the United States expanding it’s missile defense shield into Europe. This was not adding to the arsenal, it was moving them. The disagreement over these deployments angered Russia, but got the US allies it had never really had before in Poland and Czech Republic. It also gave former Russian states the nerve to separate themselves further from Moscow. And, it even gave current Russian states the nerve to try to secede. Russia became increasingly antagonistic.
Enter Barack Obama in January 2009.
His first real diplomatic effort was reaching out to Russia. He sent Hillary to do it for him. Neither Putin nor Medvedev would meet with her. So, she met with the Defense Minister and made him hit her reset button. A few months later, Obama announced he was at first removing the missile defense shield in Europe. That got met with such criticism from Poland and the Czech Republic that he changed his wording. Bottom line, he still screwed them over pretty bad. In essence, he sold out Poland, Czech Republic, Kazakhstan, Belarus, and Ukraine for Russia.
While Obama was in Norway accepting his Nobel Peace prize for what he might do someday, and boasting of the new cooperation with Russia since their “reset”, a strange event was happening in Norway as well. People freaked out when they saw it. It looked like a black hole, something alien. Not to worry said Russia, it’s just their new and improved nuclear ICBM that could circumnavigate the planet if necessary to strike anywhere they wanted. For Christmas Medvedev told Obama Russia is developing new missiles for the submarine fleet.
So, the result since Hillary hit the overload button in March is the US has substantially reduced its nuclear delivery capabilities and most likely lost several military allies while Russia has very aggressively increased theirs. Some are suggesting Hillary needs to go hit the reset button again. No telling what damage she’d do then. I love Putin’s latest advice, he’s suggesting Obama completely dismantle the US missile DEFENSE shield to level the playing field with all nuclear parties. I won’t rule out Obama taking Putin’s advice. He really is that naive.
20
Nov
I try to come up with witty post titles to show how clever I am. However, in Eric Holder’s case this week, he’s got me. There are so many choices to pick from I get a brain freeze simply trying to pick one, or two, or three.
Now, I’m not stupid, and most people aren’t. People are scratching their heads trying to figure out what’s going on with this guy. I’m not. It’s quite clear to me. And, it’s fairly clear to some others:
That’s the key right there. So, keeping that in mind, some of what’s going on makes sense. Now, in addition, you have to toss in a little history as well. There are some similarities already occurring that I think need watching.
In the late 90′s, as the Clinton presidency was winding down, there was an attack on a US military ship. A seemingly invincable navy ship was almost sunk by a handful of guys on a little boat. In 2009, a US military base is attacked by one guy with a gun. In both cases, there were multiple casualties. In both cases, the attack was announced in advance. In both cases, one segment at least of the US intelligence community knew what was going on and did nothing about it. When everything was researched, the problem seemed to be that one element of the intelligence community was not allowed to share information with the others. The common thread according to me? Jamie Gorelick. Gorelick and Janet Reno gutted the CIA. In 1997, Eric Holder replaced Jamie Gorelick under Janet Reno.
In 1980, as a special prosecutor, Eric Holder was partly responsible for the decision to indict several legislators in the ABSCAM investigation. The one person they decided not to, Jack Murtha. They skewered the legal system by labeling Murtha an “unindicted co-conspirator”. Look that one up in the legal books.
In 1997, it was Holder’s recommendation to allow Kenneth Star to expand an investigation that previously had been limited to possible illegal business dealings by Hillary Clinton, to include possible perjury charges against President Clinton regarding lying about a civilian sexual harassment charge. The special counsel would serve seven years with investigations into Whitewater, Vince Foster, and Monica Lewinsky. There of course, was no legal predecent.
In 2001, in Clinton’s last days, Holder recommended Clinton pardon Marc Rich. Rich was the star of a completely unprecedented number of presidential pardons that included drug dealers, terrorists, rapists, you name it. There of course was no legal precedent for such a mass pardon.
The reason I go into his sordid past is because it paints a picture of a person who literally just makes it up on the fly. There was no legal reason to tag Murtha as an “unindicted co-conspirator”. There was no legal reason to allow Starr to change an investigation into one issue and then suddenly jump to another unlrelated issue. There was no legal reason to pardon the hundreds of people Clinton pardoned. However, in all cases, there were political reasons to do it.
Now, we’ve got the bizarre charade that has been Holder defending his decision to bring terrorists into New York City to stand trial in civilian court for what most perceive a purely military issue.
Where to start? Sheez.
OK, so Holder doesn’t know the precedent of when the first military prisoner was tried in civilian court. Big deal huh? ( Answer, never. ) OK, so Holder doesn’t know if a military prisoner is to be given Miranda rights or not. ( Answer, obviously, if tried as a civilian. ) And, Holder doesn’t think pre-judging the outcome of a trial won’t affect the outcome of the trial ( Answer, he just invalidated the entire trial. ) Some would argue Lindsay Graham’s a jerk. That makes it all OK. However, Graham’s a former JAG. He knows military law. Holder doesn’t.
But, it got even more absurd.
I was thrilled to see someone finally publicly ask how you could be more likely to get a conviction in civilian court when the defendant has already pled guilty and asked to be executed? How would he be more likely to be convicted in a court that requires Miranda rights than a court that does not when he was never given those rights? How could he possibly be more likely to be convicted in a court that allows plea bargains as opposed to a court that does not? And, what’s the point of even having a trial if Holder KNOWS he’ll be convicted? Bigger question, what does Holder do if KSM is not found guilty? You can not hold a person indefinitely in civilian court. Unless they find him guilty, he has to be freed. And, even if they do find him guilty, what if it’s not life? Stranger things have happened in civilian court. Bottom line, Holder could not come up with a single reason to justify his decision to force these people into civilian court.
On and on it goes. The charade just keeps getting more bizarre.
The problem is Obama and Holder made their decision simply to attack Bush when it was politically expedient. They had nothing to lose fighting Bush then. Problem is, they have no way to back down. Obama’s backing Holder, but he has no logic either.
Biggest issue I see here? Holder’s whimsical decision to try Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in New York City is, according to Holder, not posing a threat to the people of New York City. Not only is he ignorant of the law, he’s totally clueless about history as well. There is precedent for trying terrorists in US courts. The key difference here is these people were captured in combat, on foreign soil. Terrorists are a different matter. In July 2001 a terrorist was found guilty in abetting the attack on Khobar Towers. The sentencing date was set for September 19, 2001. The terrorist was Usama Bin Laden. The location was the Federal Courthouse in New York City. Within blocks of the World Trade Center.
- So, you’ve got Holder guaranteeing a conviction in civil court for a non-citizen who has not been served his civil rights. How many problems do you see with that?
- You’ve got a situation where militants are cherry picked to which court they go. How many problems do you see with that?
- You’ve got Holder assuring us that the chance of conviction is greater in civilian court than it was in military court regardless of the fact a conviction has already been acheived in military courts?
- You’ve got Holder assuring us it poses no threat to anyone, regardless of the fact a similar situation resulted in 2,000 people being killed.
- And what scares me most, you’ve got an Attorney General who feels the law is what he wants it to be at any given moment and no one seems to care.
For the last eight years, I had to endure about every conceivable conspiracy theory mankind could create about why George Bush took out Saddam Hussein. The most popular, everyone surely remembers, was the oil thing. People just blindly accepted the fact that Iraq was all about oil. Even though, of course, we never got any oil from Iraq. That didn’t matter. Damn the facts, it was all about oil. However, the real fact was, that while campaigning for the presidency, George Bush gave an interview and promised he would “take out” Saddam Hussein. He didn’t mince words. He didn’t garble it. He was clear, very assured. No one listened.
In the last few days, Obama decided to kill our missile defense system in eastern Europe. To say the least, this has not gone over very well with Poland and Czechoslovakia. They stuck their necks out and held out for democracy believing we would protect them. Obama assured them we’re not. Kiss two allies good-bye. So, people started pondering the political logic of why Obama would most likely kiss off any chance of strategic alliances or support from two of the most reliable allies we’ve had in recent years. Well, it did please Russia. Quite a lot actually. They immediately announced the missiles they never could deploy in Eastern Europe would not be deployed any time soon. It pleased Iran I’m sure as they now have an unfettered shot at Israel and Eastern Europe as well. And, I’m gonna bet it pleased the hell out of North Korea, who now will get a shot at selling the missiles we promised Eastern Europe to them. The speculation immediately focused on the Russia impact:
But, others felt a little differently:
To Sen. Lindsey Graham, a South Carolina Republican who is on the Senate Armed Services Committee, “This is going to be seen as a capitulation to the Russians, who had no real basis to object to what we were doing. And at the end of the day you empowered the Russians, you made Iran happy and you made the people in Eastern Europe wonder who we are as Americans.”
Some are blaming it all on Robert Gates:
“Russia’s attitude and possible reaction played no part in my recommendation to the president on this issue,” Gates wrote in an essay in The New York Times. He said he would be surprised if Russia likes the replacement European missile defense plan much better.
So, according Gates, and no one else, the missile defense shield is not being gutted, it’s just being replaced by a better plan that should annoy the Russians just as much. That doesn’t seem to jive with what Obama’s saying. Hillary Clinton seems to think it’s even better than the original plan:
She added that criticism of the Obama plan is “not yet connected to the facts. We are not, quote, `shelving’ missile defense. We are deploying missile defense sooner than the Bush administration planned to do so.
OK, so now we’ve got completely contradictory statements. Obama says he’s shelving it, Gates and Clinton say it’s a newer, better missile defense shield. However, so far, those relying on it are mad and those who opposed it are quite pleased. So, someone is clueless.
Well, wait a minute, Hillary goes on to add:
She said a U.S. Patriot antimissile unit will do rotational duty in Poland, and the U.S. will do “close missile defense research and development” with Czech companies.
OH, I see. The revolutionary anti-missile defense shield is now being replaced by Patriot missiles and “research and development”. Yeah buddy, that should make the Czechs feel all warm and fuzzy. Russia fires missiles at Czechoslovakia, they’ll respond in kind with research papers. Who’s side would you put your money on? Me? I’m going with the Russians. Just call it a hunch.
So, quite frankly, Hillary’s lying again. That’s not missile defense. Period. As far as the world is concerned, that makes it Russia 1, Obama 0. Whether Obama likes it or not, we had a commitment to the Poles and Czechs. He reneged.
But, to people like me who take people’s words at face value, this is not the surprise that a lot of the world is making it out to be:
He told us he was going to gut the missile defense system. Some people listened, some obviously didn’t.
He also made several other speeches:
Don’t come whining when he starts gutting our nuclear arsenal in the name of national security.
BTW, he wants to gut NATO and replace it with a world police as well.
18
Mar
This video has been sent to me about a dozen times now. I still enjoy it. There is some question as to whether Bill’s snubbing Hillary, or Hillary’s snubbing Bill. Me? I think it’s obvious Hillary can’t wait to get her some, well, you know, better paying job ( yeah, that’s it ). Decide for yourself:
Hillary throwing her husband under the bus for the highest bidder at the time just doesnt’ surprise me. So, there really is nothing suspenseful here. Until, you look, a little closer…
What is that on Obama’s back?
Now, I’ve heard he’s big on teleprompting, but somehow sticking it on his back just doesn’t seem to help much. Unless, of course, it’s for whoever is behind him. I dunno who’s behind him tho. So, I’m still left clueless.
Anyone got any idea what that is?
( The “Kiss me, I’m with stupid” idea is mine alone, ok? )
( Also, the “Obama is a robot controlled by Dick Cheney” idea is mine as well. )
OK, I got this email. I thought it was kinda funny:
1947
Some of you will recall that on July 8, 1947, a little over 60 years ago, witnesses claim that an unidentified flying object (UFO) with five aliens aboard crashed onto a sheep and cattle ranch just outside Roswell, New Mexico. This is a well known incident that many say has long been covered up by the U.S. Air Force and other federal agencies and organizations.
However, what you may NOT know is that in the month of April 1948, nine months after that historic day, the following people were born:
Albert A. Gore, Jr.
Hillary Rodham
John F. Kerry
William J. Clinton
Howard Dean
Nancy Pelosi
Dianne Feinstein
Charles E. Schumer
Barbara Boxer
See what happens when aliens breed with sheep?
I certainly hope this bit of information clears up a lot of things for you. It did for me.
No wonder they support the bill to help illegal aliens!
Now You Know.
Now, knowing that peeps here get all bent out of shape if I post an obvious funny without doing scads of research to debunk it, I did. Here’s the result:
- Al Gore – 3/31/48
- Hillary Clinton- 10/26/47
- Bill Clinton – 8/19/46
- John Kerry 12/121/43
- Howard Dean – 11/17/48
- Nancy Pelosi – 3/26/40
- Dianne Feinstein – 6/22/33
- Charles Schumer – 11/23/50
- Barbara Boxer – 11/11/40
Now, what makes this email plausible is they all ( excepting Bill Clinton ), seem so alien most of the time. That’s about all I have to say about that. However, the research for this project yielded this little gem:
In today’s news, we are looking at more Obama appointees. Today’s CNN headline is about his nominee for the US trade representative. Former Dallas mayor Ron Kirk got the nod. He has something in common with several other Obama nominees, he can’t seem to figure out how to pay his taxes correctly.
Kirk’s tax returns for 2005, 2006 and 2007 were reviewed by the Senate Finance Committee as part of the vetting process, according to a report released by the committee Monday.
The committee found that Kirk failed to report as income $37,750 in honoraria collected for 16 speaking engagements at Austin College over those three years. One year, he deducted honoraria from four events as charitable donations though he hadn’t reported them as income, according to the committee report.
He also deducted too much for the cost of tickets to see the NBA Mavericks, reporting the entire $17,382 as business expenses, the report says.
Kirk has agreed to pay the $9,975 he owes from amended returns, according to the report.
“The mayor is working with the Finance Committee on a few minor issues,” White House spokesman Ben Labolt said, adding that the “nomination is on track.”
Tax evasion is not only considered a “minor issue” with Obama, it as apparently a requirement:
-
Tom Daschle failed to pay nearly $100,000. He subsequently dropped out. Obama later said he “screwed up” with Daschle. Not sure what his explanation for Kirk will be.
-
Tim Geithner is my personal favorite. The guy expected to figure out our tax code couldn’t figure out how to use TurboTax
. He was strongly endorsed by Obama and subsequently confirmed by Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid. Although Obama “screwed up” on Daschle, Geithner’s exact same issue, although not as big, is OK.
-
Nancy Killefer dropped out as well after it was revealed she failed to pay her taxes. Obama hasn’t indicated he “screwed up” with her.
Now, the situation seems to be that in order to be in charge of something important, you have to have violated a law in regards to what it is that you’re overseeing. So, true to form, we get Kathleen Sebelius for Health and Human Services ( the position Tom Daschle gave up on ):
As governor, she had a bit of a mess with, you guessed it, health care administration. So, it just seems a natural fit she should join the Obama team overseeing Health and Human Services. However, her strong desire to raise taxes on everyone in the state of Kansas I’m sure appealed to Obama.
And, of course, we can’t forget Bill Richardson, Obama’s initial choice for commerce secretary. He dropped out when it was revealed he was under federal investigation for pay to play ( A nicer word for taking bribes. )
And, of course, we can never forget Hillary Clinton. I’m sure we’d know more about her dealings if so many people weren’t dead now.
I’m still waiting for that Rahm Emanuel ( Chief of Staff ) / Rod Blagojevich / Roland Burris saga to play out.
There ya go folks, the change you can believe in.
Nancy Pelosi’s culture of corruption is thriving quite well. Apparently her problem with Bush was he didn’t support it enough.
This isn’t the first time this has happened, but it’s being discussed again ( via Kerry Picket at Newsbusters.org ):
The House Energy and Commerce Committee is also looking at how it can put in place policies that would allow it greater oversight of the Internet. “Internet radio is becoming a big deal, and we’re seeing that some web sites are able to control traffic and information, while other sites that may be of interest or use to citizens get limited traffic because of the way the people search and look for information,” says on committee staffer. “We’re at very early stages on this, but the chairman has made it clear that oversight of the Internet is one of his top priorities.”
As is pointed out in the article, this isn’t the first time this has been discussed:
I don’t have any clue about what we’re going to do legally, regulatorily, technologically – I don’t have a clue. But I do think we always have to keep competing interests in balance. I’m a big pro-balance person. That’s why I love the founders — checks and balances; accountable power. Anytime an individual or an institution or an invention leaps so far out ahead of that balance and throws a system, whatever it might be — political, economic, technological –out of balance, you’ve got a problem, because then it can lead to the oppression people’s rights, it can lead to the manipulation of information, it can lead to all kinds of bad outcomes which we have seen historically. So we’re going to have to deal with that. And I hope a lot of smart people are going to –”
That’s from 1998, Hillary Clinton to be exact. Obama’s Secretary of State.
And, that’s not all.
Another Obama cabinet member had something to say about restricting free speech on the internet:
Now, whether you call it “fairness”, “reasonable restrictions”, or whatever, limiting free speech is nothing more than limiting free speech. I personally don’t thinki it can be done. Unlike tv and radio, the internet allows a person to seek out any opinion they see fit. There are no geographical restrictions. There are no reasons to assume a person’s ability to seek contradicting opinions on any subject are restricted. Therefore, the only possible restriction would be governmental. That’s what Waxman, Clinton, and Holder have mentioned. They are contemplating creating the problem they are complaining about.
Now, I’m not going to go so far as to say this is a liberal idea. I am going to go so far as to say this is a political pwoer grab in order to shut up people they don’t want to hear.
I’m not going to freak out about this either. The Supreme Court I think would shoot this thing down in a heartbeat. Waxman, Holder, and Clinton know that. That’s why it’s never gotten beyond the discussion or planning stage. And, it should never get beyond that either.
Sure, there’s a lot of bad stuff on the internet. A lot of mindless uncaring people have something to say. The problem with this country is we assure their right to say it in order to make sure those who do think and care have that same ability to voice their opinion. That’s the way it is. That’s the way it needs to stay. The only filters on the internet should be those chosen by each individual.
If Waxman, Holder, and Hillary Clinton have their way, the only thing I’m sure we’d ever be allowed to see would be Daily Kos and Keith Olbermann. How fair would that be under this Fairness Doctrine?
Let Waxman know that you don’t appreciate his Big Brother tactics by contacting him here.
QUICKIE UPDATE: February 19, 2009: President Obama says he is against the Fairness Doctrine. I find that a little hard to believe. However, now Waxman denies he ever had anything to do with it. I find that even harder to believe.
