Thursday, February 26, 2009

Follow the Money...

The link:

For low-quality:

Let's see...according to the clip, who was one of the biggest obstructionists? In other words, people were warning about Fanny and Freddie. And who was one of the people saying there wasn't a problem?

Barney Frank. Here's what I wrote earlier:

"But, to get back to the article at hand.... Barney Frank (D-Mass.) has been accused of a conflict of interest in the Fannie Mae meltdown. And he may actually have such a conflict. Here's a link to the article:,2933,432501,00.html

" "I am the only member of the congressional gay spouse caucus," [Herb] Moses wrote in the Washington Post in 1991. "On Capitol Hill, Barney always introduces me as his lover." "

The two were, in fact, lovers from 1987 to 1998. During their time together, however, Herb Moses was a top exec at Fannie Mae and, in fact "helped develop many of Fannie Mae’s affordable housing and home improvement lending programs."

Oops? No confict of interest? Now let's assume that Mr Frank was a Republican. We'd never and I do mean never hear the end of it. No double standard??"

Here's THAT link:

But who was another one? That same Mr Schumer that told us that we don't care about pork.

You wanted change? Is this the change you wanted?

(H/T: Safhire)

"That's Impossible!!"

If you've been reading this blog for any length of time, you'll know that I shy away from the word "impossible." Granted, I have used it before, albeit very very sparingly.

Today, when I was listening to the Obamessiah speaking about " responsibility..." that single word virtually screamed for attention.

So, let's talk about the "impossible" for a moment.

First, we know that the Universe is 12.7 billion years old, give or take 100,000 years. Next, we know that our Earth is about 4.6 billion years old. We also know that our sun, Sol, is a G2-type star. And we know that within a few billion years time, around another 10 billion or so, the sun will swell into a red giant and if it doesn't consume the Earth, it will certainly boil off the oceans as well as the atmosphere. But is this something you or I should be concerned about?

Well, it is going to happen. The odds of that are 100% ... it will happen. But, I'm not going to be killed by it. You won't. Your grandchildren won't. Your great-grandchildren won't be killed by it either. So are the odds of the sun swelling into a red giant 100%, or 0%? How do you define those odds?

Next, we know that people used to be told that the human body couldn't withstand forces above 20mph or so. (Google this, you'll find it.) I don't know about you, but today on the way home, the car I was driving was going faster than 20mph. So I did the "impossible."

Then, we were told it was "impossible" for a person to go faster than the speed of sound. "Chuck" Yeager did that.

Then, we were told it was "impossible" for a human to survive in orbit. Enter Yuri Gagarin, the first human in space and the first to orbit the Earth. Although he's not alive right now, he used to be asked what it was like to do the "impossible."

Next, it was Neil Armstrong's turn. It was "impossible" for man to walk on the Moon, you see. Then, Mr Armstrong did it. You can ask him what it's like to do the "impossible."

Then (yes, I'm building up to something here) we were told it was "impossible" for a magnetar* to affect the Earth. Until SGR 1806-20** did in May 2005. And it happened from 50,000 light-years away. "Impossible?" That's what we used to think ... until it happened.

Yes, things are impossible. But as a scientist, I don't like to use that word. Most things are mathematically possible, at least, on paper. The odds of a black hole swallowing up the Earth? Yes, at some point in the remaining age of the Universe, it will happen. But I won't be killed by it, and neither will you. "Impossible?" Yes, it is theoretically possible. The odds? 1 out of 1 followed by "n" where n is the number of molecules in the area in question. In plainer words, it's going to happen ... in the order of one hundred thousand million billion trillion years (seriously.) Give or take a billion.

Here's what I'm getting at. The Obamessiah says he can balance the budget and pay for his massive spending spree by taxing only the top 2% of wage earners (the 2% of richest) Americans. My answer - impossible. You could confiscate everything they own and you still wouldn't have enough money to pay for his spending spree.

He says he can pay for his massive spending spree and that it won't be left to your children, or your children's children. My answer - impossible. To do it, he'd have to print more money (which would be backed by nothing) and the last time that was tried was in Zimbabwe.*** It didn't work there, either.

"Recent figures (as of 14 November 2008) estimate Zimbabwe's annual inflation rate at 89.7 sextillion (10^21) percent. [1]" (Links are Wikipedia's and are left intact.)

I'd like to consider myself a scientist. That means, among other things, that I don't throw out the word "impossible" very easily.

But the odds of Obama's tax and tax and spend baby spend policies working?


* - Magnetar:
** - SGR 1806-20:
*** - Hyperinflation in Zimbabwe:

Tuesday, February 24, 2009

Article: "Soldier doubts eligility, defies president's orders"

I was wondering when this was going to happen. The link:

"A U.S. soldier on active duty in Iraq has called President Obama an "impostor" in a statement in which he affirmed plans to join as plaintiff in a challenge to Obama's eligibility to be commander in chief."

The actual word that 2LT Easterling is looking for is Usurper. And yes, that word - Usurper - does appear in the Constitution.

" Obama "has absolutely refused to provide to the American public his original birth certificate, as well as other documents which may prove or disprove his eligibility," Easterling wrote. "In fact, he has fought every attempt made by concerned citizens in their effort to force him to do so." "

Not only is that true, but Mr Usurper, Obama, has spent $800,000 in lawsuits to prevent the "vault copy" of his birth certificate from seeing the light of day.

What, exactly, are you afraid of, Mr Usurper?

Here's what I wrote about this, some time back (Note that I'm quoting from a quote.)

"... "And it just angers me because we've got people dying [our Armed Forces] every day over a document [the Constitution] that is being trampled on by these idiots in this country who don't know a good thing when they see it. We're living the good life, I mean we don't see people trying to get the hell out of the United States we see them sneaking into the United States to enjoy the freedoms that we have. The very same freedoms that are being trampled on by these Obama robots who think that this guy's gonna deliver us from everything - and yet he can't produce a freakin' piece of paper, he's gonna have to spend nearly a million [$800,000 - some of which appears to have come from the Council on American-Islamic Relations***] dollars in court costs so he doesn't have to? That's baloney, and I'm sick and tired of it."

As Dr Manning said "Produce your birth certificate, man! That's all you got to do! Hasn't done it. Know why? Doesn't have one! That's why." (emphasis his)

But what really burns my cookies is when I was attempting to get Wikipedia to recognize that there appeared to be a Cult of Personality forming around "the one." You'll notice the working - I didn't say there was one forming, I said there appeared to be one forming.

On the talk page, which has since been archived, the conversation also included the various lawsuits attempting to get the Usurper to produce the vault copy of his birth certificate. I've already mentioned here several times that I'm an Editor at Wikipedia. But the discussion ended when an admin (an admin!) told me that the press would look into the matter. And that since the press (aka: mainstream media) wasn't looking into it, well ... there was nothing to look into.

"I do understand your point (name redacted). However, you mean the same press whose reporters are fawning over Mr Obama during plane rides? (do a Google search, you'll find it.) Do you mean the same press that the respected journalist Mr Malone said was showing "sheer one-sidedness..." and "...bias.." Do you you mean the press that even the Wall Street Journal said appeared to be "...cheering it all on." Do you, perchance, mean that unbiased press? "

Another tip for potential employers - never attempt to placate me. What's worse is when you use lies to attempt to do it. If you make that mistake with me, you deserve the lashing you're gonna get. Because you will get it.

The American People have been distracted by the smear rags for too long. They've cared too much about what "celebrities" and "stars" are doing, who they're sleeping with, what drug of the day they're addicted to, etcetera.

I'll be the first to admit that I do like some movies coming out of Hollyweird, but these are just people who can stand in front of a flippin' camera and read a script. Oh, and they look good doing it. That's it.

Remember when the Hollyweird types were screaming about the dwindling ice sheet? Well, as we now know, that was due to a sensor glitch. Where are those screamers now? Oddly enough, they're silent.

Yes, they look good in front of a camera and yes, they can read a script. But they know just enough about their cause du jour to be dangerous. We don't need dangerous, misinformed (and dare I say it ... those with an agenda) and sometimes half-informed people spewing "facts."

We need facts. Period. Cold, hard, impersonal facts that withstand the light of scientific - not opinionated - scrutiny.

And we also need the Usurper to produce the vault copy of his birth certificate. Instead, he's spending $800,000 in lawsuits to avoid it. Some of that appears to come from CAIR.***

What, exactly, are you afraid of Mr Obama?

*** - SOURCE - The Dr Laurie Roth Show

Monday, February 23, 2009

The Global Financial Meltdown

There are going to be a few links to other articles in this particular posting, but I'll try to tie it all together in the end.

First link:

The title should be self-evident. :) It details what happened to a bus driver who purchased an $800,000 home. Yes, you read that correctly. She admits that she and her husband bought more house than they could afford. Yet they're saying the lender made it all too easy and is demanding that the Obamessiah stop all foreclosures.

Let me get this straight: As I've already said, I had the chance to purchase a wonderful home back when I was earning $36,000 a year. I didn't, because I knew I couldn't afford it. My mind was busy with "what if" scenarios such as "what if you get laid off?" or "what happens if I get injured and am unable to work?" I did the right thing and said "no" to all those people throwing offers at me. And now the Obamessiah, the Usurper is punishing me for having done the right thing. Since when do you punish people for making the right decisions and reward those who make poor decisions? These people admitted they bought more house than they could afford. A bus driver? In an $800,000 home? Am I the only one thinking how wrong that is??

Link #2:

Again, the title should be self-evident. And the only reason I'm cross-posting again is because this article ties directly into the first. There is a lot of information at Ms Malkin's site about this particular link (#2). You'll want to read the entire thing, because those "unbiased" reporters have only touched the very tip of the iceberg. I'm going to quote from bits of the article (only a few bits) because you need to go there yourself and read the entire disgusting document. Donna Hanks, a "victim?" Not in this universe.

"In September 2006, the bankruptcy court ordered Hanks’ employer to deduct $340/month from her salary as a bartender to pay down the debt (total net monthly take home pay of $1,228): " (there was a document under it)

"Hanks did not comply with the plan. In December 2007, the servicer issued a notice of default on nearly $7,000 past due." (emphasis mine)

"In February 2008, Baltimore City Circuit Court records show a second foreclosure action was filed.

"She had two years to pay what she owed. She failed to comply." (emphasis mine)

"While she was reneging on her mortgage IOUS, she managed to collect rent on her basement (for which she was taken to court) and rack up a criminal record on charges of theft and second degree assault:"

Yet she's protrayed as a victim. ::snort::

And now for the next-to-last link:

The title of the article? "Soros sees no bottom for world financial collapse." That should scare the crap out of you.

"NEW YORK (Reuters) - Renowned investor George Soros said on Friday the world financial system has effectively disintegrated, adding that there is yet no prospect of a near-term resolution to the crisis.

"Soros said the turbulence is actually more severe than during the Great Depression, comparing the current situation to the demise of the Soviet Union."

That should remind you of something I wrote about earlier. Here's THAT link:


Only this time, I'm not saying it. But I WILL say this: Gerald Celente called 2007-2008 "The Panic of '08." He's said it will be followed by "The Collapse of '09."

This comes back to what some prominent economists, including Nobel laureates, are now saying. They're not using the "R" word anymore. "R" as in "recession."

They're using the "D" word. "D" as in "depression." And we've got those money-hungry politicians, their fat lobbyists and the fatter wall street ilk to thank for it.

Mr Celente was called quite a few things because of his prediction. And yes, they weren't nice things. But now Mr Soros is saying the same thing.

Makes you wanna spit, doesn't it?

Article: "Arctic Sea Ice Underestimated for Weeks Due to Faulty Sensor"

The link:

"Feb. 20 (Bloomberg) -- A glitch in satellite sensors caused scientists to underestimate the extent of Arctic sea ice by 500,000 square kilometers (193,000 square miles), a California- size area, the U.S. National Snow and Ice Data Center said."

You could call that a rather noticeable discrepancy. Having said that, such things do happen.

"The error, due to a problem called “sensor drift,” began in early January and caused a slowly growing underestimation of sea ice extent until mid-February. That’s when “puzzled readers” alerted the NSIDC about data showing ice-covered areas as stretches of open ocean, the Boulder, Colorado-based group said on its Web site." (Link is not mine, but has been left intact.)

Well, there's a lot there, so let's talk about this for a moment. First, due to sensor drift, the extent of the ice sheet was underestimated. In other words, they were saying it was smaller than it actually was. As I pointed out, this does happen. You could go further and call it entropy at work in that any mechanical device is going to have problems from time to time. Now that's very important to understand - any mechanical device is going to have problems from time to time. You just can't get around that one.

Having said that, this problem simply highlights another problem I wrote about earlier - the celebrities and their cause du jour. Some people, and I'm not only pointing at celebrities here, took these numbers, got on their soapboxes and screamed about the problem being far far worse than anybody thought.

That was when some of us "...puzzled readers..." told them that according to their own numbers, there was a problem somewhere. But this brings us right back to people who have an agenda or a cause du jour. They won't know enough about the entire situation to take a step back, look at the data, and say "Woah. That can't be right. These numbers can't be right."

To be fair, it was statistically possible for those numbers to have been accurate. But the odds of that being the case are roughly the same odds of a dump truck falling out of a cargo plane and crushing you. Frankly, I really don't think about that too much. I'm guessing you don't either. I'm much more worried about some of the idiots I've seen lately driving their cars. I'm much more worried about some idiot tailgating me on an icy road and him/her losing control and striking my vehicle. Or driving as if the roads were clear when they were snow-covered and treacherous. (This happened to me during our latest snowfall. He didn't strike the car, but he didn't miss it by much. But his car turned sideways and I thought he was going to hit us. That's what happens when you don't obey the rules of winter driving. Here's that link again: )

So to recap, the numbers were wrong due to sensor drift. It does happen from time to time. But when people with an agenda or a cause du jour - who don't have in depth knowledge of what's going on - jump up and down and scream that the sky's falling, that's a problem. It's great that they're interested in the topic and are worried about it. Frankly, people should be concerned about this. It simply highlights what can go wrong when people know only enough to be dangerous about such things.

Sunday, February 22, 2009

Cross-link to Michelle Malkin: "Tea Party U.S.A.: The movement grows"

The link:

Not quite 'nuff said:


Now 'nuff said.

Bob Brinker Sez More Today

Bob Brinker, one of the more trusted financial people, mentioned a book on his Money Talk programme today. The name of the book is "Chain of Blame." *1

It's a wonderful book, one that the mainstream media, the politicians, their fat lobbyists, and their fatter wall street friends loathe. It's one that I believe you need to borrow and read in its entirety.

Why? Because it's right on the money. Literally.

Here's part of the Wikipedia article about it: "The authors find that, while blame can be laid at every link of the mortgage production chain (borrowers, brokers, wholesale lenders) the ultimate culprits are Wall Street firms that carelessly securitized mortgage loan pools without appropriate diligence and attention to the quality of the underlying loans." *2 (Links left intact and are Wikipedia's.)

Let's distill that down: First, according to the authors, blame can be laid at every link in the ... chain. They didn't say almost every link, or nearly every link, they said " every link..." Unless you're a liberal that doesn't understand this, that means at every step in the process ... including the people who took out loans without reading or understanding the fine print. Granted, they do say that the ultimate culprits are Wall Street firms, but they say " every link..." and by definition that includes the people that signed on the dotted line.

But let's continue on: "...that carelessly securitized mortgage loan pools without appropriate dilligence and attention to the quality of the underlying loans."

Or as Mr Brinker put it today (to paraphrase) : "No job, no income, no security? ::bangs hand on table:: APPROVED!" For the liberals, that would be the quality of the underlying loans. In plain English, you wouldn't loan money to people you knew or had reason to believe couldn't pay you back, would you?

These firms did. Why? Ever hear of the 1977 Community Reinvestment Act? *3 Well....

"The Community Reinvestment Act (or CRA, Pub.L. 95-128, title VIII, 91 Stat. 1147, 12 U.S.C. § 2901 et seq.) is a United States federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and savings associations to meet the needs of borrowers in all segments of their communities, including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods.[1][2][3] " (Links are Wikipedia's and are left intact.)

I'm going to distill that down to "The CRA is a federal law designed to encourage commercial banks and saving associations to meet the needs of borrowers ... including low- and moderate-income neighborhoods." (I left the entire quote above to avoid being accused of taking things out of context yet again.)

But why did those institutions make these loans? I know the law was written to allow it with proper regulation, but that doesn't answer it. Why did they make those loans? Who helped write the law, or helped it be written?

"The original lobbyists for the CRA were the hardcore leftists who supported the Carter administration and were often rewarded for their support with government grants and programs like the CRA that they benefited from. These included various "neighborhood organizations," as they like to call themselves, such as "ACORN" (Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now). These organizations claim that over $1 trillion in CRA loans have been made, although no one seems to know the magnitude with much certainty. A U.S. Senate Banking Committee staffer told me about ten years ago that at least $100 billion in such loans had been made in the first twenty years of the Act.

So-called "community groups" like ACORN benefit themselves from the CRA through a process that sounds like legalized extortion." *4

Again, let's distill this down. The original lobbyists for the CRA were the hardcore leftists. They supported the Carter administration and were often rewarded for their support with government grants and programs like the CRA that they benefited from. The article names ACORN by name as one of these "...hardcore leftists..." groups. And, it claims that ACORN itself benefits from this law "...through a process that sounds like legalized extortion."

You don't say. Why does that matter now?

"It [ACORN] was a major contributor to the subprime meltdown by pushing lenders to make home loans on easy terms, conducting "strikes" against banks so they'd lower credit standards. But the organization's real genius is getting American taxpayers to foot the bill. According to a 2006 report from the Employment Policies Institute (EPI), Acorn has been on the federal take since 1977." (emphasis added) *5

STRIKES?!?!? "ACORN’s Hypocritical House of Cards: How One “Community” Group Helped the Housing Crisis Harm Taxpayers." *6, *7

But it goes further: "Which brings us to Mr. Obama, who got his start as a Chicago "community organizer" at Acorn's side. In 1992 he led voter registration efforts as the director of Project Vote, which included Acorn. This past November, he lauded Acorn's leaders for being "smack dab in the middle" of that effort. Mr. Obama also served as a lawyer for Acorn in 1995, in a case against Illinois to increase access to the polls. *5 (emphasis added)

The only reason I quoted that last it because the Obamessiah, the "saviour" in the "saviour-based economy" was one of the people who helped create this problem.

And now he thinks he can fix it? By doing what Mr Obamessiah? Screwing other people over?

*1 - Chain of Blame at
*2 - Chain of Blame on Wikipedia:
*3 - Community Reinvestment Act of 1977:
*4 - The Government-Created Subprime Mortgage Meltdown:
*5 -
*6 -
*7 -

Thursday, February 19, 2009


(H/T: Michelle Malkin)

Ms Malkin is right. If we don't stand up for ourselves ... nobody will.


And tell the morally corrupt, deficient, and bankrupt politicians that you're FURIOUS. The politicians, their fat lobbyists, and their fat wall street friends and their lobbyists got us into this disaster.

And now, we've had TARP (Crap Sandwich v1) for $700 Billion to bailout wall street, Crap Sandwich v2.0 to the tune of another $790 Billion. But it gets worse. Glenn Beck yesterday was talking about a possible THIRD Crap Sandwich of ... you guessed it ... $700 Billion.

Twice, you see, just isn't enough. They got their money for themselves and their fat friends.

Now comes Rick Santelli who is protesting the mortgage bailouts. When I was making $36k a year, I could have easily gotten a mortgage on a beautiful home. I didn't do it, because I knew I couldn't afford it.

And now, the Obamessiah is telling me that I have to pay for people who did get in over their heads, using my money to pay for their bad decisions. Some of them are saying that they didn't "understand" what they were signing. Yet they still signed. Do you sign something without reading and understanding it?

Where's my bailout? What do I get (besides screwed) for doing the right thing?

TAKE A LOOK AT THE CNBC POLL, Mr Obamessiah. (Screenshot)

The question: "Would you join Rick Santelli's "Chicago Tea Party" ?"

71,531 replies.

91% say YES
7.2% say NO
1.8% say NOT SURE

Remember that, according to my now ex-wife I'm none too bright, but ... my goodness. That's better than 9 to 1 WHO ARE AGAINST BAILING OUT PEOPLE WHO GOT IN OVER THEIR HEADS AND MADE A BAD DECISION.

For people like me who knew they couldn't afford it and didn't do it ... we're now getting screwed. Are you listening, Mr Obamessiah?

You're gonna screw me for doing the right thing? Ok....


Article: "Analysis: Democrats self-destructing over ethics"

The link:

This is just too good to pass up. "WASHINGTON (AP) — The Obama administration and the new Congress are quickly handing over to Republicans the same "culture of corruption" issue that Democrats used so effectively against the GOP before coming to power. "

And to us Independants, too. Don't forget about us. From where I stand, they're all corrupt.

" The political mess for the Democratic Party, however, isn't Burris' conduct alone; it's the pattern that has developed so quickly over the past few months."

The pattern. The "...pattern that has developed so quickly over the past few months."

You don't say. I wish I could say I was shocked, but I'm not. I wish I could say I was surprised, but again, I'm not. It's just more of the Theftocrats (Democrats) "Do as I say, not as I do." pattern. It's just more of their "The rules apply to thee, but not to me."

Here's that link again:

"The term hypocrisy is often used in a religious context to refer to someone who gives a false appearance of virtue or religion, or does not "practice what he or she preaches".[1] (Links are Wikipedia's and have been left intact.)


Or does that make too much sense?

Article: "Charges Against Stanford a Long Time Coming, Offshore Banking Experts Say."

Sorry for the long title. :) The link:

" "There's no surprise at all," said Washington lawyer and IRS consultant Jack Blum. "This man has been on law enforcement's radar screen for the better part of 10 years."

"But the SEC didn't move forward until this week, after two former Stanford Financial whistleblowers filed an alleged lawsuit, which revealed how the bank lied about too-good-to-be-true certificates of deposit. "

You don't say. The article goes on to say that Mr Stanford is now missing and that US Marshals are looking for him. I have nothing against the US Marshals, in fact, I think they do splendid work. I also think that, true to their motto, they'll get their man.

But there are two possibilities here. First, as the article states, Mr Stanford is accused of bilking investors out of as much as $8 BILLION. Therefore, it's possible that somebody took revenge on him, may have done him harm. (NOTE TO SECRET SERVICE - I DO NOT CONDONE THIS.)

The other possibility is that Mr Stanford ran. $8 BILLION is quite a bit of money, and therefore it is possible that he ran rather than face the music.

"The federal investigation, however, did not stop Stanford from using corporate money to become a big man at last year's Democratic convention in Denver.

A video posted on the firm's web-site shows Stanford, now sought by U.S. Marshals, being hugged by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and praised by former President Bill Clinton for helping to finance a convention-related forum and party put on by the National Democratic Institute. "

Oh. That's why it took the SEC the better part of 10 years.

" Over the last decade, Stanford has spent more than $7 million on lobbyists and campaign contributions to Washington politics in both parties, although the vast majority of the money has gone to Democrats. " (emphasis added)

You don't say. Has anybody in the US mainstream media reported on this next? Link:

The title? "Madoff, Stanford link in NZ."

" The New Zealand representative of the allegedly fraudulent Stanford Financial Group is an international tax professional with business links to another Kiwi lawyer associated with another accused fraudster, Bernard Madoff."

You remember Bernard Madoff, right? He's accused of the $50 BILLION Ponzi scheme.

"Wellington lawyer Gordon Ralph Stewart is the sole listed director of Stanford Trust Company (NZ), advertised as the Kiwi representative of the Caribbean-based group of companies run by Texan billionaire Allen Stanford."

"Mr Stewart is a local tax lawyer and operates out of his home office in the Wellington suburb of Thorndon. He did not return calls from The Dominion Post.

His $1.4 million Tinakori Rd home is listed as the address for Stanford Trust Company (NZ) as well as almost 100 other firms of which he is a director."

You don't say.

Video: Anti-Obama Sign Taken by OKC Cops

Seriously. Here's a direct link:

" The police officers who stopped Oklahoma City motorist Chip Harrison and confiscated a sign from his car told him he has a right to his beliefs, but the U.S. Secret Service "could construe this as a threat against President Obama," according to the incident report released this morning. " (links left intact but are not mine.)

And yes, the Secret Service was called and did a walk-through of the man's house. His Anti-Obamessiah sign was returned later that day, but it makes you wonder.

It makes me wonder how long before somebody complains that my call to Impeach Obama means that I'm a radical and that I need to be "investigated."

But if you think this is going to make me be silent:

Note to Secret Service; in this context it means "I will not be silent." In case you don't understand English, I can also say it in French, German, and Spanish. It says "I will not submit. I will not surrender." Again, in this context, it means "I will not be silent."

What I am, however, is furious. We have a Usurper in the White House who is pushing us towards Socialism, we have the lapdogs in the press cheering the entire thing on, and now ACORN is preaching that people who are about to be foreclosed on should disobey eviction orders. How about you investigate ACORN? How about you force President Barack Hussein Obama produce proof that he is eligible to be the President?

Or does that make too much sense?

How about this one:

"The students in the class were hopeful things will work out, but questioned whether Obama's plan would actually work to dig the country out of its economic woes. They also expected a longer speech." (emphasis added)


Drudge Report Opening Screen


Wednesday, February 18, 2009

Barack Obama's name messed up again.

Before I go there, he's a link to a Photoshopped image: (WARNING: NOT SAFE FOR WORK.)

The link:

Yes, you read that correctly. And what was the title of the article on Yahoo's site? "Science takes on terror hunt. A geographer uses innovative analysis to narrow Obama bin Laden's location to three sites."


(H/T: Michelle Malkin)

Article: "Catholic politicians must protect life."

The link:

" VATICAN CITY (AP) - Pope Benedict XVI on Wednesday told U.S. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, a Catholic who supports abortion rights, that Catholic politicians have a duty to protect life "at all stages of its development," the Vatican said.

"Pelosi is the first top Democrat to meet with Benedict since the election of Barack Obama, who won a majority of the Catholic vote despite differences with the Vatican on abortion. " (Links left intact but are not mine.)

No kidding. His Holiness (the Pope) has made it quite clear where the Vatican and the Holy See stand on the issue of abortion. Although, to be fair, the picture on Wikipedia's website of him scares me. Something about that smile...::shudder::

In any event, part of the porkulus that the Usurper [Obama] signed provides monies to provide for abortions. For me, I'm against abortion. But let's take a look at it this way:

Let's say that Obama had signed into law monies forcing people to not have abortions, but to deliver the children and then put them up for adoption. The abortion rights crowd would be up in arms, demanding to know how Obama could spend their money on something that they are opposed to. This is the opposite - in that Obama has demanded that some porkulus monies be used for something I'm opposed to. The liberals, of course, won't touch that. But to look at it from the reverse angle, you know they'd be up in arms.

Which brings us to another matter. How many times have we heard or read "Bushitler?" The lefties used it quite freqently, even Photoshopped a picture of President Bush giving the Nazi salute. The lefties, of course, loved that.

But now, somebody has put the facist symbol inside the "O" of Obama. The lefties went nuts. But what's that last picture?

Can we say "hypocrites," lefties?

You don't say. "Do as I say, not as I do," right?

Believe it or not, but you're part of the problem.

Article: "Holder: US is a nation of cowards on racial matters."

The link:

"WASHINGTON (AP) - Attorney General Eric Holder described the United States Wednesday as a nation of cowards on matters of race, saying most Americans avoid discussing unresolved racial issues.

In a speech to Justice Department employees marking Black History Month, Holder said the workplace is largely integrated but Americans still self-segregate on the weekends and in their private lives. " (Link not mine and left intact.)

Mr Holder, do the letters "F. O." mean anything to you? Whom I chose to spend my time with is none of your bloody concern. If I want to spend it with my family, my friends, worshipping tree bark (as some environmentalists do) then that is my choice. NOT YOURS.

But you could at least be man enough and have the cojones* to come out here and say it to my face. But that would require something that you don't have in my opinion ... cojones*.

* - A very frequent misspelling (sometimes done deliberately as a euphemism) is cajones, which actually means "drawers" (the piece of furniture) or "wooden box drums" (see cajón) in Spanish. (Links left intact and belong to Wikipedia.) And yes, I've made that mistake too.

Article: "Dem exclusive? Reporters jump ship."

The link:

You get three guesses as to where those "fair, balanced, unbiased" "reporters" went.

"In three months since Election Day, at least a half-dozen prominent journalists have taken jobs working for the federal government. "

You read that correctly. Some time earlier I wrote that Mr Obamessiah would be beholden to his lapdogs in the American "press" who went into all out cheering mode during the "campaign." And now " least a half-dozen prominent journalists..." are working for the Obamessiah. At least six.

To be fair, the article doesn't say that Chris Matthews took one of those jobs. But, also to be fair, he could simply be in the port-a-potty trying to get rid of the thrill going up his leg ... or that other stuff that's on its way down said leg. Remember that? Here's that link: (It's at 30 seconds into the clip.)

But he also did coin the term (I'm NOT making this up!) "projectile victory." And you'll forgive me, I hope, but I can't pass this one up...: (It's at 48 seconds into the clip.) "Projectile" victory. I wonder if that was some other stuff "projecting" itself down his leg at the same time the thrill was going up.

But let's return to the first link, shall we? Here it is again:

"But conservative critics answer with a question: Would journalists be making the same career choices if John McCain had beaten Barack Obama in November? " you really need to ask that question? The answer, of course, is no. You'll remember that the lapdogs savaged Mr McAmnesty and Gov. Palin. There was that SNL skit where they lampooned Gov. Palin and said that she could see Russia from her home (which, for the record, is not what she said.) There was the "Us Weekly" "magazine" article which to many, myself included, was little better than a smear article.

"And while Brent Bozell, president of the conservative Media Research Center, acknowledges that financial troubles may be forcing reporters out of newsrooms, he thinks it’s worth noting where they’re going."

Of course it's worth noting where those "impartial" "reporters" are going! How many studies now have shown the liberal bias in the "media?" And I'm not talking studies by conservative groups, I'm talking Rasmussen studies, Pew studies, there was even a UCLA study that concluded that there was a liberal bias in the media! That shouldn't be a 'duh' moment, but given that those "unbiased" reporters couldn't be bothered to report that, I'm afraid it is such a moment.

Duh. But wait! We're talking about the Obamessiah! Shouldn't that be D'Obama?

"So, would Zuckman have taken — or even been offered — such a job if McCain were president?
" “I have a great deal of respect for [McCain] and have thoroughly enjoyed covering him over the years,” Zuckman said. “But there’s no way I can answer your hypothetical because I wouldn’t know who he would have chosen for secretary of transportation."

Well, I'll partially give her this one. PARTIALLY. While it's true that she couldn't have known to an absolute certainty, she could have made a reasonable guess that it wouldn't have been her. Sorry, this is another 'duh' moment.

And as for the question of would Ms Zuckman been offered such a job in the McAmnesty administration ... sorry.


Article: "Obama has new flag frenzy."

The link:

"The White House has rediscovered - or possibly reinvented - the patriotic cachet of Old Glory as a perfect frame for the new president.

"That's the same president [Obama] who once would not wear an American flag pin. Things have changed."

No, things really haven't changed. He's a Theftocrat, and one thing they're really good at is getting the American People to swallow their shallow symbolism. That's all those flags are ... a symbol.

" "I caution people to be careful about their own perceptions and judging these situations," Mr. Glaser said.

" "This does not have the same connotation as the shallow patriotism one might adopt during a political campaign." "

He's right. Now it's all about style over substance. The Theftocrats want to make the American People forget that they're into Socialism and the best way to do that is put Old Glory everywhere ... including the Usurper's lapel.

They seem to be saying "False Patriotism for me, but not for thee." In other words, if we don't pay our taxes to fund the Generational Theft Act of 2009, we're "unpatriotic." But using Old Glory as a stageprop and making sure it's there during a photo-op ... well, that's perfectly OK.

Tuesday, February 17, 2009

Impeach Barack Hussein Obama

No, seriously. The United States is built on Capitalism, not Socialism, yet we're getting Socialism.

The American People wanted 'change,' apparently, for the sake of 'change.' But they really didn't know what they were getting, especially with the lapdogs in the liberal press cheering it all on.

Today, the Usurper in the White House signed the porkulus bill (aka; stimulus.) Michelle Malkin and others are referring to it as the "Generational Theft Act of 2009."

But it's worse than that. You, your children, your GRANDchildren and your GREAT-GRANDchildren will be paying on the porkulus that the Theftocrats rammed through the Congress and onto the Usurper's desk.

You'll notice I'm referring to Barack Hussein Obama as the Usurper. That's because under the current US Constitution, the man is owed no allegiance, is unable to give a direct order, and is unable to order our military.

IMPEACH Barack Hussein Obama before we lose our Country.

Tuesday, February 10, 2009

Schumer: "The American People Really Don't Care."

The link:

"And let me say this to all of the chattering class that so much focuses on those little, tiny, yes, "porky" amendments: The American People really don't care."

I do, you fat, ignorant, self-righteous son of a bitch. Of the $800BILLION porkulus (coined by one of Michelle Malkin's readers) package, roughly $100 - 150 MILLION is ... wait for it ... PORK.

And that number, you self-righteous windbag, is your own. Or, more accurately, your party's. That's a pretty penny.

Remember that damming Congressional Budget Office report (link: which concluded that the porkulus package would actually be worse than doing nothing?

Don't believe me? FOLLOW THE LINK.

Remember when one of your own people said that they couldn't guarantee that the porkulus would create one single job?

So tell me - who is going to bailout the Americans that lost 35 - 40 per cent of their life's earnings when the stock market tanked?

You're going to use our tax dollars for your porkulus and to bail your friends out. It makes me wanna spit.

People are getting pissed off, and I do believe a few of them are ready to stop paying their taxes. It's all going to be wasted anyway.

Wednesday, February 4, 2009

Article: "U.S. sets executive pay limits for bailout companies."

The link:

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) - President Barack Obama took on bailed-out Wall Street firms on Wednesday, setting a $500,000 annual cap on executive pay for companies getting taxpayer funds and tapping popular anger over financial sector excesses."

It's about bloody time. I'm going to agree with part of what the article said: " "This is pure political grandstanding. If the limit has bite, it will be counterproductive and the unintended consequences will hurt the U.S. as skilled and bright senior managers make choices," said David Kotok, chief investment officer at Cumberland. "If the limits have loopholes, they are a sham. Industrial policies fail. So will this one." "

Ok..there's a lot there, but I didn't want to be accused of taking something out of context (again.) Yes, for my money, this is a political grandstand. But I also agree with it.

Why? Because the fat, greedy business "executives" who make the decisions frequently got their "knowledge" of their business from a book when they were at University. I've seen that all too often, in fact, dealt with some of them at KMart, where I used to work well over a decade ago now.

One "manager" let's call him Mr Z (for the record, there was no manager at that store that had a last name that started with "Z", which is why I chose it) had just gotten out of University, still had his degree in his hot sweaty hands and was going to tell us how to fix things.

By this time, however, I'd worked for KMart for over nine years in the trenches. I'd covered every department the store had, including loss control and pharmacy. Mr Z came up to me and said "Greg, I want you to do this, that, that, this, and then something else. I want you to do it this way, and I want it done as quickly as possible."

"Aye, Sir. I'll get it done immediately after I get Ms Z's list done" (They're not related, but I did have another manager who had her own list of things to do.)

"Greg, I meant right now."

"I understand that, Sir. However, if I do your list first, Ms Z will not be pleased. Would you be so kind as to tell her that I have a new set of instructions?"

"Why are you being so damn stubborn! I NEED THIS DONE."

"Alright - look. You come in here cocking the walk and by your own admission you've never worked on the sales floor of a retail store. By your own admission all that you know you read in a book. Things don't work that way in real life. I'm sorry, but they don't.

If you're going to be a successful manager, you need to learn a few things. Start by sitting down and talking with Ms Z, who does understand. After all - she's been doing it longer than you've been alive. You need to pay attention and listen to your people - you'll learn quite a few things."

That got me written up, but true to form Mr Z and Ms Z did have words. It was Ms Z chewing him out, and to be frank - he deserved it.

But to her credit, Ms Z did tell me off the record that if I hadn't done it first, she would have.

That, however, should tell you something. First, that I'm mouthy. :) Second, that many managers simply have no clue as to what's going on. Executives also fall into this category. I know that some hiring manager will read this posting in future and decide I'm too "combative."

Their loss. But if you're going to hire managers and executives who don't know how to get their hands dirty doing honest work ... perhaps you have it coming?

So yes, this latest bit from President Obama is political grandstanding. I firmly believe that. I also firmly believe that it needed to be done.

I've said quite a few bad things about President Obama - I know that. But I also will give credit where it's due. And my hat is off to him for this.

It's past time to make the fat morally-bankrupt executives take notice. The American People are pissed off at their largesse. It's time to slap them upside the head and make them learn. And since money seems to be all they're interested in - that's where you start.

Sunday, February 1, 2009

Article: "GOP leaders doubt stimulus bill will pass Senate"

The Link:

"WASHINGTON (AP) — Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said Sunday the massive stimulus bill backed by President Barack Obama and congressional Democrats could go down to defeat if it's not stripped of unnecessary spending and focused more on housing issues and tax cuts."

"The Senate version of the bill, which topped out at nearly $900 billion, is headed to the floor for debate."

You read that correctly. Remember, that this is Crap Sandwich v2.0. The first one, of course, was that $700BILLION that Mr Paulson (yes, that one) said that we don't have the right to know where the money went or how they spent it.

Time for some math. 700,000,000,000 + 900,000,000,000 = $1.6TRILLION

And yet, we're still not promised that this will create one single job. And as far as I know, there are no controls put on this latest Crap Sandwich to force them to document where the money is going or who gets it.

Mad yet?

Article: "Beware of CAIR."

The link:

NOTE: You'll notice that part of the URL says "editorialcontent." In fact, when the page loads it does say "Editorials & Opinion." Therefore, it could be said that the article is, in fact, an Op-Ed peice. But it is damming. Very damming.

"Homeland Security: You'd think the Council on American-Islamic Relations would be savoring the results of an election that favors its agenda. Instead, it's having to do major damage control. " ("Homeland Security" is in bold because it is on bold on the webpage.)

"Over the past several months, the Washington-based pressure group has suffered a series of punishing blows to its reputation as a self-proclaimed "moderate" voice for Muslim-Americans. In the latest setback, a "Dear Colleague" letter sent out to every House member warns lawmakers and their staffs to "think twice" about meeting with CAIR officials.

"The FBI has cut ties with them," the letter says. "There are indications" CAIR has links to Hamas, the Palestinian terrorist group."

"The marginalization of CAIR, which has enjoyed astonishing access to official Washington, comes after the successful prosecution of leaders of a U.S. Muslim charity that funneled millions to Hamas terrorists. CAIR and its co-founder Omar Ahmed were named unindicted co-conspirators in that Holy Land Foundation case.

"CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad, moreover, was caught on tape participating in a meeting with Hamas leaders to disguise payments as charity. During the trial, the FBI described CAIR as a front group for Islamic extremists.

"It just gets worse for CAIR. Former clients of the group are suing it for fraud. The Muslims say CAIR, which claims to be an advocate for Muslim rights, extorted thousands of dollars from them in a scam in which CAIR said it would help them get U.S. citizenship."

That's a long quote, so let's parse this down. First, the U.S. Muslim charity that they reference is the Holy Land Foundation as evidenced by "CAIR and its co-founder Omar Ahmed were named unindicted co-conspirators in that Holy Land Foundation case."

Unindicted co-conspirators!

Let's repeat one of those lines: "CAIR Executive Director Nihad Awad, moreover, was caught on tape participating in a meeting with Hamas leaders to disguise payments as charity. During the trial, the FBI described CAIR as a front group for Islamic extremists. (emphasis added)

But what is this FBI document they reference? Here's the direct link to it:

Again, that's a direct link to the document. You'll notice the date on the document; 8-OCT-2008.

I know I'm probably going to get sued by somebody for posting this. Yet, these are direct quotes from articles already published, and direct links to said articles.

"The Company That You Keep?"

The Company That You Keep

Have you ever been "convicted" of something in the Court of Public Opinion? I have, and it ain't pretty.

My "crime" was to tell the truth about some people that had turned on me. To be fair, I do share some of the blame for what happened. It's not that I'm looking to shoulder more blame or portray myself as a "victim," it's that that is the truth.

I've always told the truth on this blog, and I'm not about to do otherwise. For me to spin stories or to bury others would be to ruin whatever credibility that I'd earned.

And this is one of those times. I've been "convicted" in the CoPO before when our role-playing Community was coming apart at the seams. My 'friends' had turned on me, and one of the others who'd been silent throughout the entire ordeal posted a message defending me.

I didn't ask this person to do it, and I hadn't known before hand that the message would be posted. Yet when that message defending me was posted to the forums, well. You'd think we were a Cabal and that our goal was to destroy our Community. Nothing could be further than the truth. But that doesn't matter to those with an agenda or with their own ideas.

But that comes back to the subject of this posting "The Company That You Keep." I was "guilty" of a "crime" because a person who was not liked in our Community posted a message defending me. Therefore, I was guilty by association.

And those are the most important words thusfar ... guilty by association.

The link: (Now bear in mind, that this is Israel National News.)

"( Democratic presidential hopeful Sen. Barack Obama is currently hiding his anti-Israel views in order to get elected, according to a well-known anti-Israel activist. The activist, Ali Abunimah, claimed to know Obama well and to have met him on numerous occasions at pro-Palestinian events in Chicago."

Before we go further, you'll notice that they're saying he's doing this to get elected. That's because this article was written on 23-MAR-2008. But remember that name - Ali Abunimah - you'll be seeing it again.

" "As he [Obama] came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, 'Hey, I’m sorry I haven’t said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race.' I’m hoping when things calm down I can be more up front.' He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy [and said:] 'Keep up the good work!'" "

But that's not all: "Barack, Michelle, Edward and Mariam Abunimah's report included a photo of Obama with his wife Michelle seated at a table with virulently anti-Israeli Professor Edward Said and his wife Mariam, in what Abunimah said was a May 1998 Arab community event in Chicago at which Said gave the keynote speech. " (emphasis added)

Why is that important? Here's that name again: Ali Abunimah. "Now, the other pillar of Israeli power -- Western support and complicity -- is starting to crack. We must do all we can to push it over."

Here's that link: You'll notice the name of the person that wrote this: Ali Abunimah.

Mr Abunimah actually said this: " "I [Mr Abunimah] remember personally introducing him [Obama] onstage in 1999, when we had a major community fundraiser for the community center in Deheisha refugee camp in the occupied West Bank," he recounted. "And that's just one example of how Barack Obama used to be very comfortable speaking up for and being associated with Palestinian rights and opposing the Israeli occupation." " Link:

The Company That You Keep?