Sunday, January 31, 2010

"I'd rather be a really good one-term president than a mediocre two-term president,"

Barack Obama

Source

I don't know about anyone else but I think he's being incredibly presumptuous assuming he is going to be a mediocre President. I guess he can aim high.

Saturday, January 30, 2010

You Have Got To See This

We finally have the GOP fighting back against the fringe media. I have said all along that a large part of the public perception of Republicans is because they let themselves be defined.

Check out this exchange on MSNBC:

GOP Senator Rips Into MSNBC Host For 'Absurd,' 'Dishonest,' Statements

Friday, January 29, 2010

Athiests. What Can You Say?

Atheist Group Blasts Postal Service for Mother Teresa Stamp

An atheist organization is blasting the U.S. Postal Service for its plan to honor Mother Teresa with a commemorative stamp, saying it violates postal regulations against honoring "individuals whose principal achievements are associated with religious undertakings."

The Freedom from Religion Foundation is urging its supporters to boycott the stamp — and also to engage in a letter-writing campaign to spread the word about what it calls the "darker side" of Mother Teresa.

The stamp — set to be released on Aug. 26, which would have been Mother Teresa's 100th birthday — will recognize the 1979 Nobel Peace Prize winner for her humanitarian work, the Postal Service announced last month.

"Noted for her compassion toward the poor and suffering, Mother Teresa, a diminutive Roman Catholic nun and honorary U.S. citizen, served the sick and destitute of India and the world for nearly 50 years," the Postal Service said in a press release. "Her humility and compassion, as well as her respect for the innate worth and dignity of humankind, inspired people of all ages and backgrounds to work on behalf of the world’s poorest populations."

But Freedom from Religion Foundation spokeswoman Annie Laurie Gaylor says issuing the stamp runs against Postal Service regulations.

"Mother Teresa is principally known as a religious figure who ran a religious institution. You can't really separate her being a nun and being a Roman Catholic from everything she did," Gaylor told FoxNews.com.

Postal Service spokesman Roy Betts expressed surprise at the protest, given the long list of previous honorees with strong religious backgrounds, including Malcolm X, the former chief spokesman for the Nation of Islam, and the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr., a Baptist minister and co-founder of the Southern Christian Leadership Conference.

"In fact we honored Father Flanagan in 1986 for his humanitarian work. This has nothing to do with religion or faith," Betts told FoxNews.com.


Continue reading

As far as I am concerned these bastards can piss off.

Or, maybe we can honor an atheist who has spent their entire adult life in a ghetto feeding people living in abject poverty. Anyone know of who we can nominate?

Thursday, January 28, 2010

Under The Bus Goes Congress

“Let's just clarify. I didn't make a bunch of deals [on health care]. ... There is a legislative process that is taking place in Congress and I am happy to own up to the fact that I have not changed Congress and how it operates the way I would have liked.”

Barack Obama

Source

Even thought the most recent story is that Obama was going to take control of the process and not job it out to Congress.

So, I have a question:

Can anyone reading this come up with one example of Obama taking responsibility for anything in the last year?

He has not taken responsibility for the exploding federal deficit, a 2 point increase in the unemployment rate, worsening violence in Iraq or Afghanistan, the pantie bomber, the breakdown in intelligence that led to the Fort Hood terrorist attack, etc, etc.

Just one thing. Anything. Give me something.

Wednesday, January 27, 2010

Watch This To See How It Develops

Women's Groups Blast 'Divisive' Pro-Life Super Bowl Ad -- Without Even Seeing It

Tebow, the Heisman Trophy-winning quarterback for the University of Florida, and his mother Pam will appear in a pro-life commercial that tells the story of his risky birth 22 years ago -- an ad that critics suggest could lead to anti-abortion violence, even though none of them have seen it.

The 30-second spot, paid for by the conservative Christian group Focus on the Family, is expected to recount the story of Pam Tebow's turbulent pregnancy in 1987:

When Tebow suffered from a dangerous infection during a mission trip to the Philippines, doctors recommended that she terminate her pregnancy, fearing she might die in childbirth. But she carried Tim to term, and he went on to win the 2007 Heisman Trophy and guide the Florida Gators to two BCS championships.

It's a happy story with an inspirational ending, but pro-choice critics say Focus on the Family should not be allowed to air the commercial because it advocates on behalf of a divisive issue and threatens to "throw women under the bus."

"This organization is extremely intolerant and divisive and pushing an un-American agenda," said Jehmu Greene, director of the Women's Media Center, which is coordinating a campaign to force CBS to pull the ad before it airs on Feb. 7
.

Source

Does CBS have the stones to stick by it's decision to run the commercial or will it cave to it's far left audience? Stay tuned.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

Does This Seem RIght To You?

Obama Endorses Deficit Task Force

I don't want to spend a lot of time on this because if you read the article it appears that it is likely dead on arrival. What I did find funny is the plan for the roll out. If you give Obama anything, give him his arrogance.

The bipartisan 18-member panel backed by Obama would study the issue for much of the year and, if 14 members agree, report a deficit reduction blueprint after the November elections that would be voted on before the new Congress convenes next year.

Source

So, they want to spend the year looking at this, announce the findings after the elections, and vote on it before the new Congress is sworn-in in 2011?

Anyone else think there is a lot to worry about with this idea?

Monday, January 25, 2010

What Do You Think About This?

Europe welcomes Obama bank plan, won't imitate it

LONDON/PARIS (Reuters) – Major European economies offered support on Friday for U.S. President Barack Obama's plan to limit banks' size and trading activities but indicated they had no plans to follow suit.

Obama's dramatic proposals could rewrite the world financial order but experts said they were light on detail and could cloud the global approach fostered by the Group of 20 nations.

The European Union will not imitate Obama's plan, because it aims to reduce risk in the sector through other means, an EU source said on Friday.

"Look, we understand the U.S. position and we understand his reasons. But I can't see the EU going down this route," the source, who is close to EU financial policymaking, told Reuters.


Source

So what do you think?

I am going to admit, I am not a financial expert. With that said, I can't help but think that Obama is being taken for a sucker by the international banking community. My uneducated guess is that they are more than happy to stand aside and let him hamstring our banks while they let their banks grow and prosper.

Next thing you know they're going to spend all of their money on social programs instead of a strong military and expect us to protect them.

Sunday, January 24, 2010

Quote Of The Week

"In Scott Brown we have an irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against woman and against politicians with whom he disagrees."

Keith Olbermann

Source

Um, Keith, that's "Senator irresponsible, homophobic, racist, reactionary, ex-nude model, teabagging supporter of violence against woman and against politicians with whom he disagrees" to you.

Seriously, when is MSNBC going to rein in these hate mongers?

This just in;

On a less serious note, you have to watch this clip. Jon Stewart rips Olbermann and he is hysterical. Hat tip to I Hate The Media


The Daily Show With Jon StewartMon - Thurs 11p / 10c
Special Comment - Keith Olbermann's Name-Calling
http://www.thedailyshow.com/
Daily Show
Full Episodes
Political HumorHealth Care Crisis

Saturday, January 23, 2010

Giving The UN The Power To Tax?

Tax and Spend: U.N.'s Rx for New World Medical Order

A member of a World Health Organization (WHO) panel of experts that is pondering new global taxes on e-mails, alcohol, tobacco, airline travel and consumer bank transactions, has charged that she was given only selective information at group meetings, that deliberations were rushed and that group was "manipulated" by the international pharmaceuticals industry.

All of her charges were strongly denied by the head of WHO's Expert Working Group on Research and Development Financing (EWG), a 25-member panel of medical experts, academics and health care bureaucrats which is due to present a 98-page report in Geneva on Monday, after 14 months of deliberations on "new and innovative sources of funding" to reshape the global medical industry.

A copy of the executive summary of the report was obtained by Fox News on January 15 — the same day, as it happens, that the EWG's dissident member first aired her charges in a letter to members of WHO's 34-member supervisory Executive Board.

The executive summary first revealed the possibility of a multibillion-dollar "indirect consumer tax" as one means of financing an epic shift of drug-making research, development and manufacturing capabilities to the developing world that is the central aim of WHO's fund-raising strategy.


Source

Anyone else think this is a wonderful idea?

Friday, January 22, 2010

This Is The American Fringe Media

Saw this article and video on CNN. I have always considered CNN to be a little more centrist than MSNBC. Of course this is not saying much considering that MSNBC is so far left they can't even see the middle. With that said, this article is repulsive.

It is an interview with a Muslim wife whose husband has murdered CIA agents in a terrorist bombing. She obviously is a nutjob and an extremist Muslim, a far more typical re-presentation of Islam than a lot of people would want to admit but never less not out of the ordinary in that part of the world.

The interviewer though is from the west (maybe the UK?). Read the article and see how touching the interview is. The article reads as if it is about the widow of a fireman that gave his life to save children and puppies from a burning car.

This is why the leftist media is so insidious. A reader will look at this and while they may not be real sympathetic towards the woman, they are not being given a true picture of the hatred and horror evident in this act and the belief of the wife that it was justified. The article instead was clearly intended to invoke sympathy for the "freedom fighters" in Islam as the far left media has called them.

Fair warning though, the video is very nauseating. Watch at your own risk.

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Do Dems Have Something To Worry About?

There is obviously many red flags in the Massachusetts Senate race just won by Scott Brown. Look closer at some of these numbers though.

All emphasis mine

First Look At Massachusetts Election Night Poll Data

· 78% of Brown voters Strongly Oppose the health care legislation before Congress.

· 52% of Coakley supporters Strongly Favor the health care plan. Another 41% Somewhat Favor the legislation.

· 61% of Brown voters say deficit reduction is more important than health care reform.

· 46% of Coakley voters say health care legislation more important than deficit reduction.

· 86% of Coakley voters say it’s better to pass the bill before Congress rather than nothing at all.

· 88% of Brown voters say it’s better to pass nothing at all.

Results include:

•Brown leads among middle-income voters ($40,000 to $100,000).

•Coakley leads among those at upper and lower end of income range.

•Brown leads by 13% among political moderates.

•Among those who decided how they would vote in the past few days, Coakley has a slight edge, 47% to 41%.

•Coakley also has a big advantage among those who made up their mind more than a month ago.

•Seventy-six percent (76%) of voters for Brown said they were voting for him rather than against Coakley.

•Sixty-six percent (66%) of Coakley voters said they were voting for her rather than against Brown.

•22% of Democrats voted for Brown. That is generally consistent with pre-election polling.

Source

Democrats have desperately tried to convince us that Coakley lost because she ran a bad campaign. She did run a bad campaign but this is not why she lost.

Look at the 22% of Democrats voting for Brown. Voters do not vote outside of their party because their candidate ran a bad campaign, they just swallow their dislike and vote for them. They vote outside of their party for only one reason, they don't like what they are seeing and/or hearing. I don't think this is because of bad campaigning.

Look at the number of Brown voters that voted for him instead of against Coakley then look at her numbers for the same (76% and 66% respectively). Again this is a message gap. He had more voters that were voting for what he stood for than she did. It's no small coincidence, in my opinion, that she was campaigning on the national democratic platform.

Even though Brown ran on a fairly conservative message, especially for Massachusetts, he had a 13% edge among moderates.

A large number of Brown voters were concerned about the deficit and against health care, two big issues right now with a majority of voters across the country.

One could look at these and say that it all adds up to Brown running a better campaign and there is some truth to this. Keep in mind though that Coakley won with a comfortable margin in the primary, has been elected previously as Attorney General, and appeared fairly popular in this capacity. People knew her before the campaign, people did not know Brown. She did not need to run a spectacular campaign to win.

I think her bigger sin is one that Obama and the rest of the Democratic politicians in the country are guilty of, arrogance. She did not run a bad campaign as much as she was arrogant. She truly believed that she knew what was best for the voters and they would just understand this if they would only pay attention to her. She did not need to go out and meet people, she did not need to stand outside the ballpark and shake hands, she certainly did not need a pick-up truck. All she needed was for the people to just fall in line behind her because she knew the way.

This is the sin that will doom the Dems this fall because if you are listening to them at all, they still don't get why we aren't understanding what they are trying to do for us. A lot of them have decided they just need to explain it better to us knuckle draggers and things will be fine.

Wednesday, January 20, 2010

Dems Figuring Out Why Coakley Lost

This article is a fairly interesting read on what happened in Massachusetts Tuesday. It's a good analysis of the different factors that went into Brown beating Coakley for the Senate special election seat left vacant when Ted Kennedy died. None of it is really a surprise, except this:

Van Hollen (Maryland Rep. Chris Van Hollen, head of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee) seemed to throw the "blame Bush" argument out into the mix, subtly, in his statement on the race Tuesday night.

"President George W. Bush and House Republicans drove our economy into a ditch and tried to run away from the accident. President Obama and congressional Democrats have been focused repairing the damage to our economy," he said.

So, it's Bush's fault that a Dem lost a Senate seat. This blame Bush bit has gone beyond partisanship and into insanity.

If the voters were angry at Bush wouldn't they have voted for a Democrat? Maybe they would have done the same in the New Jersey and Virginia governor's races too you think?

I am not upset though. In fact, I find this heartening. I hope the Dims continue their head in the sand (or head up their ass, take your pick) posture for another 10 months.

I Saw It

My wife and I gave in and saw Avatar.

For special effects and imagery, I give it 2 thumbs up. For everything else, I give it one finger up.

The special effects were amazing. The scenery they built with CGI, the action scenes, colors, etc were incredible. The plot and message, not so much.

I do think the charges of anti-Americanism are being a little overblown. I think it was implied but I don't think it was overt. Besides, there was so much more to be upset over about the film.

The plot was weak and un-original. It was cowboys and indians except the cowboys had bigger guns and the indians were blue. Other than that it was every movie of that genre ever made rolled into one.

It was incredibly predictable. Nearly every scene in the first half of the movie set up something else later and you saw it coming way ahead. There were no plot twists whatsoever. Everything that happened at the end was foreseen.

As far as the anti-Americanism, like I said there was so much more to be critical of. It was a liberals dream movie. It had environmentalism. It had a power hungry military commander running over poor innocent natives. It had a greedy corporation that sacrificed lives to make a buck. It even had the corporate leader feeling guilty at the end when he saw the error of his ways. It had a mother-Earth type of deity that controlled the balance of things on the planet. It had animal rights portrayed in a logical manner, we only kill what we need.

The anti-military message was probably the most prevalent of the causes in the movie. They did make it clear at the beginning that the troops were mercenaries and not an official standing army. They also did have the lead character disgusted at the actions of the mercenaries because they did not uphold the honor of his Marine corps. The rest of the depiction of the troops and especially the commander were way over the top.

It was obviously the vision of troops a liberal sees when they look at them. The bloodthirsty men and women had no cares for the native people. They killed men, women, and children all alike. They rejoiced in the misfortunes and enjoyed the destruction they caused.

Finally the commander was so over the top he was caricature instead of a remotely accurate portrayal of the worst American military officer. He even had scars for God's sake.

The whole depiction of the troops was so ridiculous that it actually wound up making the director look silly. It was so obvious he was trying to shed a bad light on the men and women of uniform that it was bordering on being a parody of movies that make fun of the troops.

So, the imagery was great but the movie itself was not nearly as good as the hype it is getting.

Monday, January 18, 2010

What Do You Think About This?

Saudi billionaire eyes new links with News Corp.

CAIRO (AP) - The Saudi billionaire whose investment firm is one of the biggest stakeholders in Rupert Murdoch's News Corp. said he is looking to expand his alliances with the media giant, in the latest indication that his appetite for growth remains robust even as his company retrenches.

Prince Alwaleed bin Talal, a nephew of the Saudi king and who was listed last year by Forbes as the world's 22nd richest person, met with News Corp.'s chief executive Rupert Murdoch on Jan. 14 in a meeting that "touched upon future potential alliances with News Corp.," according to a statement released by his Kingdom Holding Co. late Saturday.

Media reports have indicated that News Corp, parent to Fox News and Dow Jones & Co., among others, may be thinking of buying a stake in Alwaleed's Rotana Media Group, which includes a number of satellite channels that air in the Middle East.

Neither company has commented publicly on the possible deal, but the talks offer an indication yet that such an agreement may yet be in the offing.

Kingdom Holding's statement said Alwaleed is already the second largest stakeholder in News Corp., with 5.7 percent of the shares of the media company. The stake is held through Kingdom Holding, in which Alwaleed holds a 95 percent stake.

The investment company has a diverse portfolio, ranging from hotels to shares in Apple, eBay and Citigroup.


Source

So, what do you think about that? Any red flags pop up?

Sunday, January 17, 2010

Quote Of The Week

"A year later, America is stronger because of the president's leadership,"

Ben Rhodes, White House deputy national security advisor for strategic communications

Source

Not to get off on the cheap here but 'nuff said.

Saturday, January 16, 2010

The Idiocy Of Liberal Media On Display - Again

Hat tip to Stormin's Morning Java.

Mika Brzezinski from the Morning Joe on MSNBC is making fun of Sarah Palin for hesitating to mention her favorite founding father on Beck. Palin does eventually answer the answer correctly.

Listen to see who Mika's favorite is.

Friday, January 15, 2010

Do I Smell Fear?

Sarah Palin is joining Fox News as a contributor. The fringe media has made note of this and are kicking their smear machine back into high gear (it's always running, they just have periods of peak activity).

So the question is, is this fear?

Follow Drudge on a daily basis and you will note that he releases the cable news race numbers on a regular basis. If you have seen this or something similar you will know this is a very creative use of the word "race".

There really isn't a cable news race right now. There is Fox having their way and the fringe media is on life support. Virtually every week, all Fox shows outrank all other cable news shows. Some Fox shows such as O'Reilly, Hannity, and Beck get close to having as many viewers as all of the shows on an entire network combined.

I think the rest of the networks know that Palin is going to kill them. My prediction is that she will wind up with her own show and compete with the big 3 personalities on Fox for the most watched show.

She has personality, charm, good looks and a knack for talking to everyday people. This is a package no one in cable news has right now.

I said earlier in the week that the fringe media are in the toilet right now and Sarah Palin is getting ready to flush them down the drain.

Thursday, January 14, 2010

Where Is Chris Matthews When You Need Him?

This is a video form Youtube. I suspect a lot of you have seen it, I assume most of you have heard of this now famous quote from Martha Coakley. She weighs in at the :40 mark.



The narrative by the poster, mghoft, accompanying the video is this:

On Wednesday December 30 Jordanian doctor and Al-Qaeda blogger Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi killed 7 CIA officers in a suicide bomb attack at an outpost in southeastern Afghanistan. Before he murdered the Americans in Afghanistan he recorded a tape with the local Taliban leader. The Taliban released the tape after his death.

On Monday Senate Candidate Martha Coakley told Massachusetts voters that it was time to pull out of Afghanistan. The Taliban was "not there" anymore.

"I think we have done what we are going to be able to do in Afghanistan. I think that we should plan an exit strategy. Yes. I'm not sure there is a way to succeed. If the goal was and the mission in Afghanistan was to go in because we believed that the Taliban was giving harbor to terrorists. We supported that. I supported that. They're gone. They're not there anymore."

She's not just wrong- She's dangerous.

In his "martyrdom" tape Humam Khalil Abu-Mulal al-Balawi warned that the attacks would spread outside of the Pakistan-Afghanistan region.
But Martha Coakley says they're not there anymore.


Obviously she's an idiot and appears to be just as qualified for the Senate as Obama is for the Presidency.

My question though is, where the Hell is Chris Matthews on this? Where are all of the other Palin bashers? Why aren't they labeling this woman an idiot, unqualified, dangerous?

Anyone reading this have a clip of Matthews or any other lib idiot reporter making snide remarks about this? Anyone have a clip of a lib idiot reporter even acknowledging it? I wrote this on Wednesday, I have to work Thursday. As of this writing, there is not a mention of her ignorant remark on CNN, MSNBC, ABC, CBS, or CNN. Ironically though, they all had articles about Sarah Palin and derisive articles about her joining Fox.

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

Your Government At Work

IRS commissioner doesn't file his own taxes

IRS Commissioner Douglas Shulman does not file his own taxes in part because he believes the tax code is complex.

During an interview on C-SPAN's "Newsmakers" program that aired on Sunday, Shulman said he uses a tax preparer for his own returns.

"I've used one for years. I find it convenient. I find the tax code complex so I use a preparer," Shulman said.


Source

In my mind this is just too funny.

Tuesday, January 12, 2010

Good Idea?

Sarah Palin to Contribute to Fox News

Former Gov. Sarah Palin of Alaska has signed on as a contributor to the Fox News Channel.

Sarah PalinThe network confirmed that Ms. Palin would appear on the network’s programming on a regular basis as part of a multiyear deal. Financial terms were not disclosed.


Source

Myself, I think this is a smart move for her. She is an engaging personality and fun to watch. She is photogenic.

I think she could make more of a mark here than running for office. Look at the influence Rush, Beck, or Hannity have. Palin can have this same effect and possibly more.

The one thing that separates her from the aforementioned three is personality which may give her some crossover appeal. The men can all be a little abrasive and often turn people off. Palin will appeal to moms, a segment of the electorate that is not fully utilized by the GOP.

I think this is the best way she can make her mark in conservatism.

What do you think, good or bad idea?

Monday, January 11, 2010

What Do You Think About This?

This is a long article but well worth reading even though it is nauseating.

Scott Brown swearing-in would be stalled to pass health-care reform

It looks like the fix is in on national health-care reform - and it all may unfold on Beacon Hill.

At a business forum in Boston Friday, interim Sen. Paul Kirk predicted that Congress would pass a health-care reform bill this month.

“We want to get this resolved before President Obama’s State of the Union address in early to mid-February,” Kirk told reporters at a Greater Boston Chamber of Commerce breakfast.

The longtime aide and confidant of the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, who was handpicked by Gov. Deval Patrick after a controversial legal change to hold Kennedy’s seat, vowed to vote for the bill even if Republican state Sen. Scott Brown, who opposes the health-care reform legislation, prevails in a Jan. 19 special election.

“Absolutely,” Kirk said, when asked if he’d vote for the bill, even if Brown captures the seat. “It would be my responsibility as United States senator, representing the people and understanding Senator Kennedy’s agenda. . . . I think you’re asking me a hypothetical question but I’d be pleased to vote for the bill.”

Few have considered the Jan. 19 election as key to the fate of national health-care reform because both Kirk and front-runner state Attorney General Martha Coakley, the Democratic nominee, have vowed to uphold Kennedy’s legacy and support health-care reform.

But if Brown wins, the entire national health-care reform debate may hinge on when he takes over as senator. Brown has vowed to be the crucial 41st vote in the Senate that would block the bill.

The U.S. Senate ultimately will schedule the swearing-in of Kirk’s successor, but not until the state certifies the election.

Friday, a spokesman for Secretary of the Commonwealth William Galvin, who is overseeing the election but did not respond to a call seeking comment, said certification of the Jan. 19 election by the Governor’s Council would take a while.

“Because it’s a federal election,” spokesman Brian McNiff said. “We’d have to wait 10 days for absentee and military ballots to come in.”

Another source told the Herald that Galvin’s office has said the election won’t be certified until Feb. 20 - well after the president’s address.

Since the U.S. Senate doesn’t meet again in formal session until Jan. 20, Bay State voters will have made their decision before a vote on health-care reform could be held. But Kirk and Galvin’s office said Friday a victorious Brown would be left in limbo.

In contrast, Rep. Niki Tsongas (D-Lowell) was sworn in at the U.S. House of Representatives on Oct. 18, 2007, just two days after winning a special election to replace Martin Meehan. In that case, Tsongas made it to Capitol Hill in time to override a presidential veto of the expansion of the State Children’s Health Insurance Program.

Friday, Brown, who has been closing the gap with Coakley in polls and fund raising, blasted the political double standard.

“This is a stunning admission by Paul Kirk and the Beacon Hill political machine,” said Brown in a statement. “Paul Kirk appears to be suggesting that he, Deval Patrick, and (Senate Majority Leader) Harry Reid intend to stall the election certification until the health care bill is rammed through Congress, even if that means defying the will of the people of Massachusetts. As we’ve already seen from the backroom deals and kickbacks cut by the Democrats in Washington, they intend to do anything and everything to pass their controversial health care plan. But threatening to ignore the results of a free election and steal this Senate vote from the people of Massachusetts takes their schemes to a whole new level. Martha Coakley should immediately disavow this threat from one of her campaign’s leading supporters.” A spokeswoman for Coakley’s campaign declined to comment Friday.


Source

So, what do you think? Will this work for the Dems?

I think there are two other scenarios to consider.

One, a Brown win may scare the Hell out of any Dems that are nervous about re-election. This would be huge, a Republican taking away the seat held by Teddy Kennedy one of the Democratic patron saints. (Note: as of Sunday morning a poll has him up 1 point with a lot of support from independents)

Second there will be a monstrous backlash if the Dems try to pull this kind of stunt. They are already having public relations problems. The appointment of Kirk took a sleazy change in election law so that they could appoint a Senator favorable to health care reform. Add to this the fact that they will be holding secret closed doors talks, in direct opposition to what Obama promised during the campaign, and they may get a lot of flack over a sleazy move like this.

Finally, how do you like the arrogance of the Dems with this quote?

“It would be my responsibility as United States senator, representing the people and understanding Senator Kennedy’s agenda. . . . I think you’re asking me a hypothetical question but I’d be pleased to vote for the bill.”

First, he is not "representing the people" he was appointed in a crass partisan move to push an agenda that the public doesn't want. Second, it is clear he is more concerned about Kennedy's view on this than the view of the voters who would be sending a strong message they do not want health care reform by electing Brown.

So what are your thoughts on all of this?

Sunday, January 10, 2010

Quote Of The Week

"I deeply regret using such a poor choice of words. I sincerely apologize for offending any and all Americans, especially African-Americans for my improper comments,"

Harry Reid

What did Reid say?

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada described in private then-Sen. Barack Obama as "light skinned" and "with no Negro dialect, unless he wanted to have one." Obama is the nation's first African-American president.

Source

This just makes Reid another in a long line of Democrats who have had to apologize for making racist statements. They call members of which party racist?

But don't worry, Reid supported Obama's run for the White house. In fact, this is what he told him back long ago when Obama was deciding whether to run.

"You're not going to go anyplace here," Reid told Obama of the Senate. "I know that you don't like it, doing what you're doing."

Have truer words ever been spoken?

Obama won't have to worry about Reid hanging around the Senate and forming a white hood coalition with Robert Byrd though because Reid's lease expires next November.

In the poll (Las Vegas Review-Journal), 52 percent of respondents had an unfavorable opinion of Reid, 33 percent had a favorable view and 15 percent were neutral. That's a new low and the worst rating of the paper's 2010 election surveys.

What's more, Reid is trailing all three potential GOP opponents. Sue Lowden, former Nevada Republican Party chairwoman, leads Reid 50 to 40 percent. Danny Tarkanian, a businessman and former UNLV basketball star, has 49 percent of the vote to Reid's 31 percent.

And most shockingly of all, Sharron Angle, a former Reno assemblywoman and virtual unknown, is beating Reid 45 percent to 40 percent. The poll shows 42 percent of respondents don't know her.

Is that harsh or what? The voters of Nevada are so turned off by this dude that they are willing to vote for someone they don't even know. See ya Harry.

Source

Saturday, January 9, 2010

A New Twist On An Old Problem

Man Claims to Be Illegal Immigrant to Avoid Facing Charge

SANTA ANA, Calif. — Border Patrol agents say a U.S. citizen claimed to be in the country illegally, possibly hoping to be deported instead of having to face an attempted murder charge in Southern California.

Agent David Jimarez says a man identified by Santa Ana police as 29-year-old Adolfo Aparicio was arrested Friday in Arizona in an area known for drugs and human smuggling.

Officials say the man misidentified himself and told authorities he was in the country illegally. A felony warrant had been issued for his arrest for the attempted homicide of his wife in Santa Ana.

Aparicio's true identity was discovered through a fingerprint check. Authorities say he will be extradited from Arizona to face charges in California.


Source

I have a different take. I suspect he assumed he would not face any punishment for being an illegal. In fact, the poor man may simply have been looking for free health care and free education for his children.

Friday, January 8, 2010

An Embarrassment To Their Profession

I work with paramedics on a daily basis and I can tell you they are good and caring people. I have seen them do things that go way beyond their call of duty. Knowing these men and women makes this story even harder to digest.

It is a story that I have been following for almost a month off and on. The incident happened on December 9th. Sorry, the article is a little long but when I attempted to cut it, some of the impact of the event was lost.

Asthma Blamed in Death of Pregnant Woman Allegedly Ignored by EMTs

Although that tentative finding still leaves open the question of whether the EMTs could have saved 25-year-old coffee shop worker Eutisha Rennix — and her unborn baby — there was no doubt about the answer for Rennix's mom.

"They should have helped her," said Cynthia Rennix after the autopsy at the Medical Examiner's Office in Brooklyn. "She would have been here today.

"This should never happen to another family again, because my family is destroyed right now," said the heartbroken mom outside the ME's office, where she was accompanied by relatives, including her daughter's 3-year-old son. "It makes me very angry."

Cynthia said the EMTs, Jason Green and Melisa Jackson, "could have given her the care that she needed to help her."

The autopsy was attended by former city medical examiner Michael Baden, who observed the procedure for the family.

The family's lawyer, Sanford Rubenstein, said: "Preliminarily, it appears the cause of death was simply an asthma."

"Had the asthma attack been addressed by the EMTs, would she have died? That's the question that has to be answered," Rubenstein said. "If there is criminal culpability, the EMTs should be held accountable."

City authorities have said that the emergency workers had a duty to check on Rennix.

Baden said an autopsy that was performed yesterday on Rennix's daughter showed the baby died as a result of oxygen deprivation. She was delivered some time after Rennix died.

Rennix collapsed Dec. 9 in a back room of the Au Bon Pain at MetroTech Center in Downtown Brooklyn, where she worked. The coffee shop is a favorite of firefighters and emergency medical technicians who work upstairs at the FDNY's offices.

Shop workers said Green and Jackson blew off repeated pleas to check on Rennix themselves, saying, "We're on our break, so there's nothing we can do," as they waited for their orders of Asiago cheese bagels.

Jackson eventually called one of her fellow emergency dispatchers upstairs to notify them that a woman was having "difficulty breathing," but she and her boyfriend Green left with their bagels before an ambulance arrived — and without even looking at Rennix.

Rennix died hours later in a hospital, as did her baby.

Jackson and Green — who have been suspended by the Fire Department without pay — now are targets of a criminal investigation by the Brooklyn District Attorney's Office.

The EMTs' lawyer, Douglas Rosenthal, yesterday said, "It's premature to comment at this point."


Source

This is disgusting. I can tell you that in health care we don't go on break. From the moment I drive onto the campus at work until the moment I am on the road home, I am an RN on duty. I may not be punched in, I might even be there for a meeting and off for the day. Either way, I would stop and help someone in distress. Even beyond that I will stop at the scene of an accident to assist as most of my colleagues would. We have the ability, we need to use it.

Our lunch break is taken in the department so that we can be called off at any time. It doesn't happen often and when I was a charge nurse I did it as a last resort but it is a part of the job.

As most of you know I work in an Emergency Room and we go from slow to crazy immediately. In good conscience none of us would sit and eat while a patient is in severe distress. There have been plenty of times when I have worked 12 hours without a break or lunch was at my workstation in between tasks.

I'm not whining, I love my job and accept the downsides. Reality is that we entered the health care field to help people, these two let this woman down.

The saddest part is that if she had an asthma attack, there is a good chance that mother and baby would still be alive if they had intervened early and treated her.

Quite frankly I hope they go to jail.

Thursday, January 7, 2010

Those Crazy Brits

I saw this article on Breitbart's site under the "odd" section.

Snowed-In Brits boost adultery website

IllicitEncounters.com, which provides a platform for married people to conduct affairs, said on Wednesday it has seen an unexpected increase in visitors over the past 24 hours, and received a record number of new profiles on Wednesday morning.

That is certainly odd but what really caught my attention was the last line of the article:

It says it has more than 350,000 members in Britain and that its aim is to create a safe and nonjudgmental environment where married men and women can meet each other.

Isn't that touching?

Source

Wednesday, January 6, 2010

Couldn't Have Said It Better

This article sums up the incompetence of the Obama administration as far as terrorism goes very well. Read the rest of the article, it's well worth it.

Our President Is Not Protecting Us

President Obama’s team has scared the nation over the past week with pronouncements so crazy they leave you breathless. But worse still are the decisions they’ve made, decisions that show America is in danger, and that those charged with protecting us are failing to treat this life-and-death struggle as the war that it really is.

First, after a terrorist attack was thwarted only by a detonation malfunction and brave airline passengers, a blissfully-clueless Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told an incredulous nation that our “system worked.” That comment was so absurd that no further comment is necessary. She should have been forced to resign within hours.

Lest we think it was a mistake, however, White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs—whose incessant missteps betray an ineptitude so self-evident that it’s amazing he’s lasted an entire year—parroted Napolitano’s assurances that we shouldn’t worry, because their sterling performance shows us that our security system works great.

The fact that these two senior administration figures were spouting the same ridiculous line—“Move along. Nothing to see here. Everything’s fine.”—means that the top White House staff decided on that coordinated message. That means Obama’s brain trust—Rahm Emanuel, David Axelrod and Valerie Jarrett—agreed to try selling that line to the American public.

You should feel insulted that they’d even try.

But the worst words came from the president himself. First is “allegedly.” President Obama said that Nigerian Islamic terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab “allegedly” tried to blow up an American airliner to kill hundreds of Americans You use the word “allegedly” if you’re in the media or if you’re prosecuting a criminal, not referring to undeniable acts of war.

The second is that Obama labeled this terrorist act an “isolated extremist.” We know that: (1) he’s affiliated with Al Qaeda, (2) he had help getting onto the plane, (3) he carried military-style high explosives that were likely prepared for him by experts, and (4) was in contact with the same radical Muslim imam who encouraged the Fort Hood terrorist. There are also reports that there may have been an accomplice on the plane. To call him an “isolated extremist” in the face of such facts willfully ignores the obvious truth that this was a coordinated terrorist attack.

And third is the longstanding criticism that Obama does not allow his administration describe what we are involved in the "War on Terror." They speak of "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan—usually with a gratuitous slap at George Bush or Dick Cheney—but not the fact that America is in a global war with Islamic jihadists.


Continue reading

Tuesday, January 5, 2010

A New Direction Or Saying The Right Thing?

GOP Chief: Republicans 'Screwed Up' After Reagan

WASHINGTON -- Republican Party Chairman Michael Steele offers a simple explanation for why the GOP may have lost touch with some Americans since the Ronald Reagan era: "We screwed up," he claims in a new book offering a blueprint for the party's resurgence.

That "we" includes the last two Republican presidents and the most recent Republican candidate for president.

In "Right Now: A 12-Step Program for Defeating the Obama Agenda," released Monday by Regnery Publishing, Steele says the GOP should acknowledge where "we most glaringly compromised our principles" in the past decade and hold its elected officials accountable.

"We must support Republican officials who assert these principles," he writes. "When elected Republicans vote against Republican principles, the voters must withhold their support -- withhold it vigorously and consistently."


Source

Only time will tell if Michael Steele is leading us in the right direction or if he is only telling us what we want to hear.

What are your thoughts?

Monday, January 4, 2010

What Do You Think About This?

It has been a busy time of year and I don't have a good question for this week. This does kind of amuse me though and should be worth some fun comments.

Atheist Rapist Claims Rights Violated After Sharing Prison Cell With Christian Inmate

An atheist rapist has complained that his human rights were breached by having to share a prison cell with a Christian inmate.

Barman Steven Relf, 40, was jailed indefinitely after admitting raping two women he targeted when he served them drinks in a pub.

Police branded him a "sexual predator" and said he could have had as many as 40 victims.

In a letter to an inmates' magazine, Relf wrote: "I recently had the displeasure of sharing a cell with a Bible-thumping believer."

A source said Relf was "furious" at having to share at Manchester Prison with the Christian convict and wanted him to be "evicted".

He said: "He moaned about how the guy wouldn't shut up about God. He said he wanted to speak to a lawyer about his rights so he could be moved cells."

The other inmate was later transferred.


Source

So, what do you think? Should we be honoring the wishes of atheist rapist on their room assignments?

Sunday, January 3, 2010

Quote Of The Week

"One thing I'd like to point out is that the system worked,"

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, 12/27/09

Source

"Here, clearly, something went awry. We want to fix that problem,"

"No secretary of homeland security would sit here and say that a system worked prior to this incident which allowed this individual to get on this plane,"


Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano, 12/28/09

Source

Now, one's first thought would be that she is an idiot and is grossly unqualified to be Homeland Secretary. One would be right but there is more to it than that I believe.

I think what really happened here is that all members of the Obama administration have a primal need to deny any possibility of failure whenever something, well, fails.

This is an administration that does not have the ability to say "we screwed up, let's fix the problem".

I do realize that all Presidents are egocentric and adverse to admitting they are wrong but all, before now, have been able to muster the courage to do so when needed.

Clinton admitted to mistreating women (sort of).

George W admitted to mistakes in hurricane Katrina and replaced his FEMA director (although it must be noted that every single Democrat involved in the situation from the Mayor's office to the Governor's office could not even though they owned most of the mess).

Hell, even Jimmy Carter has finally admitted he is an anti-Semite (not his exact words but we knew what he meant).

We have a terrorist attack at Fort Hood, the Obama Justice Department knew within 4 hours it was not one. They have spent their time since then trying desperately to find a way to get to the bottom of how this is W's fault.

Of all of the problems we have had over the last year amazingly not a single one of them are the fault of the Obama administration.

I believe this is one of the main reasons his popularity numbers are going south. People simply do not like a weasel, especially when he is the "leader" of the free world.

Finally, I am not a smart man. Could someone explain to me what the Hell this means?

"No secretary of homeland security would sit here and say that a system worked prior to this incident which allowed this individual to get on this plane,"

I have read this over and over and it makes no sense to me.

Note:

I wrote this earlier in the week, I often write my quote of the week blogs early when a quote strikes me as interesting. I almost retracted it when I saw that Obama came out and had a speech critical of the government's response to this and the failure of them to make our flights safer. I almost did until I got to this quote from him on Tuesday:

"It's becoming clear that the system that's been in place for years now is not sufficiently up to date to take full advantage of the information we collect and the knowledge we have,"

Source

I stand by my earlier statements that he cannot take responsibility for anything, he simply blames it on Bush.