Thursday, April 30, 2009

Limericks for Obama


Twins: People Magazine's Beautiful People

Timothy Geithner and Beavis.  Which one is which?


Being Linked To Obama Makes You Beautiful

There is no question that the MainStreamMedia has an extreme liberal bent. Sometimes it shows up in the most unusual places. People magazine, for example.  Guess who is on the list of People magazine's most beautiful people....

Michelle Obama, wife of the tele-prompter ... er, uh ... wife of the PRESIDENT ... made the list. Now, to be honest, I don't think Michelle Obama is ugly. I'm not going to make any jokes about her looks. But one of the 100 most beautiful? Not a chance.

How about Rahm Emmanuel. Known for heated tirades, Emmanuel looks like the father of Eddie Haskell.  People magazine should be expecting cards and letters of appreciation laced with expletives.

The real stretch, however, is Timothy "Turbo Tax" Geithner. Let's face it; if the folks at people magazine didn't know Geithner was a part of the Obama administration, he'd have a hard time making the list of America's 150 million most beautiful people. Geithner looks like the president of the high school chess club. He's the guy who thinks the guys with pocket protecters are cool. He probably took his cousin to the prom. 

Of course, it helps that Geithner's brother is a VP at People magazine.

When was the last time a well known conservative Republican made this list?


100 Days .. 100 Mistakes

I want to credit Red for the following link. I'd have probably missed it if it hadn't been on his blog...


Obama's Biggest Lie

As a continuation of the review of last night's presser, I wanted to add the following: Obama's biggest lie from last night; a lie unchallenged by the willing participants in the media.

While Obama spent very little time talking about the economy, he did make a point to say that he "inherited" huge deficits from the Bush administration. He wants to perpetuate this myth because he knows that the national debt and the deficits are going to grow beyond where he has taken them in his first 100 days.  He's already tripled the deficits the government was running under Bush.

Obama isn't an idiot.  He knows that the deficit spending and the huge government debt will have a detrimental effect on the economy. He's blasted Bush for this very thing. He also knows that his economic policies will grow the annual federal deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars over what it was when he took office. Furthermore, he knows that if he keeps repeating the lie that it's all Bush's fault often enough, the media will not question that point and will continue to record that the federal deficits, which may top several trillion dollars a year before he leaves office, were all Bush's fault.


Obama's Self Evaluation of the First 100 Days

In case you missed it, Obama went on prime time TV last night to tell the nation that he's doing a wonderful job, and to assure us that everything is coming up roses.  While I will not attempt to parse Obama's entire address last night, I do think a couple of points are worth making:

The media loves this guy. Dick Morris (former Clinton advisor) made the point after the address that during Clinton's first term (four years) the news media only allowed him two prime time addresses outside of the State of the Union addresses.  In three months, Obama has had three. I don't have the data to show how many Bush was allowed, but outside of his State of the Union addresses and outside of a couple of national emergencies (9/11 and the beginning of two wars) I doubt he had more than three in his whole eight years in ofice.

The questions asked were mostly softball questions.  Yes, this is a matter of opinion, but let's face it.  We are in the middle of a Depression, the likes of which hasn't been seen since the 1930's, and nobody asked him about the economy.  

The more important points made during his address were regarding "interrogation techniques."  

Before I address his answer, I want to make the following point:  What the Bush administration calls "interrogation techniques", the democrats are very carefully wording "torture."  "Bush used torture to...."  They want to paint Bush as Hitler.  They have wanted to do this since he came into office. They tried to tie the Bush legacy to the Iraq war for the last 4 years of his presidency. When it looked like we were actually going to win the Iraq war, the switch tactics and are now trying to tie torture to the Bush legacy.  This is about politics and elections, not about moral standards. If they can convince people that Bush was Hitler and he tortured people, they can use that in national elections for the next 30 years.

Back to Obama....

Obama made it clear that he would never use "enhanced interrogation techniques" even if it meant saving American lives. The interesting thing about that answer is that he considers his opinion that these techniques are wrong to be more important than national security and the lives of the American people. That's a huge amount of arrogance, as far as I'm concerned. 

There will be another attack on US soil by Islamoterrorists.  I'm convinced of that.  I'm also fairly certain, that they will attempt one within the next four years.  What if a loved one of yours lost his or her life, and that could have been prevented by withholding food from a known terrorist for 36 or 48 hours? Nothing that would have caused permanent harm.  Just a little temporary hunger.  How would you feel about Obama's insistence that he's right and the CIA and the Bush administration were wrong?


Wednesday, April 29, 2009

Obama's First 100 Days

I've been debating about posting any kind of "100 day assessment" of the Obama administration, but I thought I'd go ahead and get the ball rolling.  Use the "Comments" section to add to my list...

The Good...

- While it's clear that Obama's personal politics are about as far left as you can get, he's done a "reasonable" job of selecting a staff that keeps him from going off the deep end, so to speak
- He's done a fair job of moderating the extreme elements in the party that would like to execute the entire Bush administration along with Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh and most conservative voters
- Has yet to break his campaign promise not to raise taxes on those earning under $250,000
- His promise to be a "unifier" seems to be working.  The Republican party is becoming more unified than it has been since the Reagan administration

The Bad...

- Trillion dollar deficits for generations to come
- World Apology Tour
- Bows to Saudi Arabia but not the Queen of England
- Allows Latin Dictators to insult him
- Expands abortion and stem cell research on fetuses, while cutting off stem cell research using adult stem cells

The Ugly...

- Has outed a dozen or so Democrats as tax cheats and then appointed them to his Administration
- While admitting to dozens of mistakes of the Bush administration, has yet to acknowledge that the spending going on right now could create long term problems while not providing short term solutions.  Apology owed.
- While critics complained that the war in Iraq distracted from the war on terror, Obama has pretty much cancelled the war on terror altogether.  Don't expect al-Qaeda to get the memo.  They will attack us again, and the next time it could be within our unprotected borders (again)


U.S. Economy Shrinks More Than Expected

While most of the major media outlets have been following the directives and talking about how good the economy is doing and how things have "stabilized," Reuters apparently has strayed off topic.

Reuters is reporting today that the U.S. economy contracted at a pace that was steeper than expected during the first quarter of 2009. According to government data released today, the economy is still deep in recession.

Gross domestic product, which measures total goods and services in the U.S. dropped at a 6.1 percent annual rate during the 1st quarter after shrinking 6.3 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008.  Analysts had forecast a GDP falling at a rate of 4.9 percent.

The report from the Commerce Department showed business inventories plummeted by a record $103.7 billion.  Exports collapsed at 30 percent, the biggest decline since 1969, after dropping 23.6 percent in the fourth quarter of 2008. Investments by businesses tumbled a record 37.9 percent. Residential investments dived 38 percent, the biggest decline since 1980. 

As expected, the report said that the government's $787 billion spending splurge approved in February had no impact on the first quarter GDP. 


Russian Ship Seizes Pirates

Russian news agencies are reporting today that a Russian warship has seized a vessel with 29 suspected pirates off the coast of Somalia. The anti-submarine vessel seized the ship yesterday, along with automatic rifles, pistols and ammunition.

The reports say a Russian tanker fended off an attack by the same group earlier that day.

It's nice to see that somebody is doing something about this problem. Hopefully, some nation will emerge as a world leader in dealing with international problems, since our nation seems to be pre-occupied with making apologies and trying not to offend anyone.


That Explains It ... Maybe

Fox News is reporting today that a group of unlicensed doctors and nurses are working at the United Nations and are distributing controlled narcotics including Valium, Diazepam and Demerol.  In some instances, they are even self-medicating.

Even though the United Nations headquarters are in midtown Manhattan, the building is apparently in "international territory" and not in the jurisdiction of the United States, so any disciplinary action would have to be taken by the UN, not the US.  

Expect a strongly worded resolution coming from the security council telling the US and other nations to stay out of their business.

I think this explains a lot of the UN actions.  They are behaving like strung-out sixties radicals because of the drugs!

(Or maybe not.)


Tuesday, April 28, 2009

Stunning News! Arlen Spector....

Here is some absolutely stunning news..

I know many of you will find this hard to believe, but according to news reports, until recently, Arlen Spector was a ... REPUBLICAN!!!

You read that right. If you've been watching his voting record, you probably assumed, just like me, that he'd been a Demoncrat all along. Apparently, the only thing that has kept him out of the Democratic party until now is that he actually has been paying his taxes. 


Is Obama Just More Bush?

In the waning days of the 2008 presidential campaign as the Middle East seemed to calm down and the American economy stumbled, candidate Obama attempted to draw a clear distinction between himself and Senator John McCain.  He specifically stated that John McCain would be more of Bush's policies that caused the downfall of the American economy, while he would be just the opposite.

While we'll never know what John McCain would have done in the first 100 days of his 2009 presidency, it looks like Obama is more like Bush than he'd care to admit.

-- President Bush expanded the federal budget by a historic $700 billion through 2008. President Obama would add another $1 trillion.

-- President Bush began a string of expensive financial bailouts. President Obama is accelerating that course.

-- President Bush created a Medicare drug entitlement that will cost an estimated $800 billion in its first decade. President Obama has proposed a $634 billion down payment on a new government health care fund.

-- President Bush increased federal education spending 58 percent faster than inflation. President Obama would double it.

-- President Bush became the first president to spend 3 percent of GDP on federal antipoverty programs. President Obama has already increased this spending by 20 percent.

-- President Bush tilted the income tax burden more toward upper-income taxpayers. President Obama would continue that trend.

President Bush ran budget deficits averaging $300 billion annually. After harshly criticizing Bush’s budget deficits, President Obama proposed a budget that would run deficits averaging $600 billion even after the economy recovers and the troops return home from Iraq.

True conservatives, like myself, never considered Bush a conservative and have been critical of his fiscal policies all along.  What's puzzling is why liberals hated Bush so much.  From a fiscal standpoint, he was more like them than they could ever admit.


Security Before Politics

Porter J. Goss writes the following for the Washington Post:

Since leaving my post as CIA director almost three years ago, I have remained largely silent on the public stage. I am speaking out now because I feel our government has crossed the red line between properly protecting our national security and trying to gain partisan political advantage. We can't have a secret intelligence service if we keep giving away all the secrets. Americans have to decide now.

A disturbing epidemic of amnesia seems to be plaguing my former colleagues on Capitol Hill. After the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks, members of the committees charged with overseeing our nation's intelligence services had no higher priority than stopping al-Qaeda. In the fall of 2002, while I was chairman of the House intelligence committee, senior members of Congress were briefed on the CIA's "High Value Terrorist Program," including the development of "enhanced interrogation techniques" and what those techniques were. This was not a one-time briefing but an ongoing subject with lots of back and forth between those members and the briefers.

Today, I am slack-jawed to read that members claim to have not understood that the techniques on which they were briefed were to actually be employed; or that specific techniques such as "waterboarding" were never mentioned. It must be hard for most Americans of common sense to imagine how a member of Congress can forget being told about the interrogations of Sept. 11 mastermind Khalid Sheik Mohammed. In that case, though, perhaps it is not amnesia but political expedience.

Let me be clear. It is my recollection that:

-- The chairs and the ranking minority members of the House and Senate intelligence committees, known as the Gang of Four, were briefed that the CIA was holding and interrogating high-value terrorists.

-- We understood what the CIA was doing.

-- We gave the CIA our bipartisan support.

-- We gave the CIA funding to carry out its activities.

-- On a bipartisan basis, we asked if the CIA needed more support from Congress to carry out its mission against al-Qaeda.

I do not recall a single objection from my colleagues. They did not vote to stop authorizing CIA funding. And for those who now reveal filed "memorandums for the record" suggesting concern, real concern should have been expressed immediately -- to the committee chairs, the briefers, the House speaker or minority leader, the CIA director or the president's national security adviser -- and not quietly filed away in case the day came when the political winds shifted. And shifted they have.

Circuses are not new in Washington, and I can see preparations being made for tents from the Capitol straight down Pennsylvania Avenue. The CIA has been pulled into the center ring before. The result this time will be the same: a hollowed-out service of diminished capabilities. After Sept. 11, the general outcry was, "Why don't we have better overseas capabilities?" I fear that in the years to come this refrain will be heard again: once a threat -- or God forbid, another successful attack -- captures our attention and sends the pendulum swinging back. There is only one person who can shut down this dangerous show: President Obama.

Unfortunately, much of the damage to our capabilities has already been done. It is certainly not trust that is fostered when intelligence officers are told one day "I have your back" only to learn a day later that a knife is being held to it. After the events of this week, morale at the CIA has been shaken to its foundation.

We must not forget: Our intelligence allies overseas view our inability to maintain secrecy as a reason to question our worthiness as a partner. These allies have been vital in almost every capture of a terrorist.

The suggestion that we are safer now because information about interrogation techniques is in the public domain conjures up images of unicorns and fairy dust. We have given our enemy invaluable information about the rules by which we operate. The terrorists captured by the CIA perfected the act of beheading innocents using dull knives. Khalid Sheik Mohammed boasted of the tactic of placing explosives high enough in a building to ensure that innocents trapped above would die if they tried to escape through windows. There is simply no comparison between our professionalism and their brutality.

Our enemies do not subscribe to the rules of the Marquis of Queensbury. "Name, rank and serial number" does not apply to non-state actors but is, regrettably, the only question this administration wants us to ask. Instead of taking risks, our intelligence officers will soon resort to wordsmithing cables to headquarters while opportunities to neutralize brutal radicals are lost.

The days of fortress America are gone. We are the world's superpower. We can sit on our hands or we can become engaged to improve global human conditions. The bottom line is that we cannot succeed unless we have good intelligence. Trading security for partisan political popularity will ensure that our secrets are not secret and that our intelligence is destined to fail us.


Obama's Tax Policy Bails Out the Super Rich By Taxing the Middle Class

Obama and his public relations team have made it appear that his trillion dollars in higher taxes will fall only on "the rich." Obama stresses that his tax increase is only for the richest 5 percent of Americans, while the other 95 percent receive a tax cut.The fact of the matter is that the income differences within the top 5 percent are far wider than the differences between the lower tax brackets and the "rich" American in the 96th percentile.

For Obama, being "rich" begins with $250,000 in annual income, the bottom rung of the top 5 percent. Compare this "rich" income to that of, for example, Hank Paulson, President George W. Bush's treasury secretary when he was the head of Goldman Sachs.

In 2005, Paulson was paid $38.3 million in salary, stock and options. That is 153 times the annual income of the "rich" $250,000 person.

Despite his massive income, Paulson himself was not among the super rich of that year, when a dozen hedge fund operators made $1 billion. The hedge fund honchos incomes were 26 times greater than Paulson's and 4,000 times greater than the "rich" man's or family's $250,000.For most Americans, a $250,000 income would be a godsend, but envy can make us blind. A $250,000 income is not one that will support a rich lifestyle. Moreover, many people prefer lesser incomes to the years of education, long work hours and stress of personal liability that are associated with many $250,000 incomes. In truth, those with $250,000 gross incomes have more in common with those at the lower end of the income distribution than with the rich. A $250,000 income is 10 times greater than a $25,000 income, not hundreds or thousands of times greater. On an after-tax basis, the difference shrinks to about six times.

The American tax code taxes the $250,000 income at the same rate as it taxes a $100,000,000 or higher income. On an after-tax basis, after the federal government grabs 30 percent in income taxes and state government grabs 6 percent, the "rich" man or woman or family earning $250,000 has $160,000. In New York City, where there is a city income tax in addition to state and federal, this sum diminishes further. State sales taxes take another 6 or more percent of most consumption expenditures.

When all is said and done, the after-tax value of a $250,000 income in New York City is about $140,000.Is this rich? It might be in a small town in Alabama, but not in New York City. The "rich" person or family won't be purchasing a Manhattan apartment, much less a brownstone. They won't be driving a luxury car. Indeed, they won't be able to afford a parking garage for an economy car. If they fly anywhere, it won't be in a first-class seat.

For the most part, $250,000 incomes are located in large cities where the cost of living is high. For example, a husband and wife who are associates at major law firms, each of whom works 60-hour weeks and has no job security, earn $125,000 each. They might both have student loans to pay down. For the Obama administration to lump these people in with Hank Paulson or billionaire hedge fund operators is propagandistic.

What is the difference between the $250,000 "rich" income and the $245,000 "non-rich" income? After Obama's tax scheme goes into effect, the $245,000 income will benefit from a tax cut, and the $250,000 will have a tax increase. Will people in the 96th percentile ask for pay cuts that will drop them into the 95th percentile?In America, the truly rich are those in the top 0.5 percent of the income distribution. These are the people with yachts and private airplanes, and who are still rich after they lose half their wealth in a stock market collapse caused by government policy that accommodated financial gangsters.

"Oh, well, I was worth $600,000,000 last year and only $300,000,000 this year. Perhaps we should stop drinking $1,000 bottles of rare vintages and move down to $100-a-bottle wines. Probably shouldn't buy that new yacht or that villa in the south of France."

The upper middle class with $250,000 gross incomes are major losers of the financial collapse. Many of the people in this income class are leveraged to the hilt in order to maintain appearances and can be swept away as easily as the very poor. But those who were frugal and invested for their future have lost 50 percent of their savings. These wiped out people are the ones who will bear the brunt of Obama's tax increase.

If the tax rate on a multimillion dollar annual income goes up by 5 percentage points, the cutbacks won't really affect the lifestyle. But for the $250,000 gross income group, it means no prospect of private schools and Ivy League education for the children, who will be attending state colleges with the rest of the non-rich.

Obama is attacking the only income class that has any independence – the upper-middle-class professionals. The real rich are few in number and seldom present any opposition to government. Recently, the March 23, 2009, New York Times reported that the 400 richest Americans' "share of the nation's total wealth has nearly doubled to more than 22 percent." The average income of the 400 richest Americans is $263 million annually. That is 1,052 times the income of the "rich" $250,000 income.

What the Obama administration is really doing is taxing ordinary people in order to bail out the super-rich. The 95 percent of Americans who get the tax cut will find that it is offset many times by the depreciation in the dollar and the raging inflation that will result from monetizing the multitrillion-dollar budget deficits made necessary by the bailouts of the banksters.


Friday, April 24, 2009

What's Another Two Billion Dollars

It's only money, right?

Apparently that's the attitude of Obama, his administration and his tele-prompter.  This week, we, the American taxpayer, loaned another 2 billion dollars to General Motors.

This, coming mere days after the administration told GM to prepare to file bankruptcy this summer.

The Treasury Department said today that it lent the additional money to the troubled automaker to provide working capital. The loan pushes the amount of GM's government aid to over 15 billion dollars.  

Furthermore, a government report revealed earlier this week that the Treasury was planning to provide GM another 5 billion dollars in bailout money.  In addition to all of this, the automaker's financial unit, GMAC, has received $5 billion in government (taxpayer) money, plus GM received a $1 billion loan to buy more equity in GMAC.

Does this make sense to anyone?


Thursday, April 23, 2009

Napolitano Has A Lot of Explaining To Do

Per Fox News...

Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano is under fire for what critics see as a string of gaffes, with a small but vocal group of conservatives calling for her to step down. 

The outrage continues to build over a report from her department that warned of the danger of right-wing "extremists," and singled out returning war veterans as susceptible to recruitment. 

Napolitano expressed regret for the reference to veterans -- but she raised eyebrows again this week when she suggested that the Sept. 11 hijackers entered the United States through Canada, even though the 9/11 Commission determined they came to the United States from overseas. 

"I don't know that the secretary understands the depth of the disruption that she's caused," Rep. Michael Burgess, R-Texas, told FOX News on Thursday, referring to the report on extremist threats. "I think the appropriate thing to do is for her to step down and let's move on." 

Conservatives made a stern call for her ouster Wednesday night on the House floor. 

"Mr. President, fire that woman," said Rep. John Carter, R-Texas, complaining that Napolitano's comments on the controversial report were half-hearted. "To go on television and say your apology to be, 'I'm sorry you were offended by this report,' that's no apology." 

Rep. Michele Bachmann, R-Minn., also said Napolitano's resignation is in order, and she should be brought before Congress for a hearing. 


House Minority Leader John Boehner briefly addressed the criticism over Napolitano on Thursday.

"I think Secretary Napolitano has an awful lot of explaining to do," he said.

(Full story)


Ex-Senator Is Spamming You

Spammers come in all shapes and sizes.  One, in particular, wears very large sneakers.

Bill Bradley, the former NBA basketball player and former U.S. Senator from New Jersey (D) and one time presidential candidate, may very well be helping to clog up your inbox with unwanted mail.

Bradley sits on the board of QuinStreet, which is identified as a major spamming firm by anti-spam organizations such as and

Founded in 1999, the California based company posted revenues of $8 million last year from clients such as ADT home security, DeVry University and various dating web sites.

The company calles itself a leader in "vertical performance marketing and media," which experts say is code for something that is not only very annoying, but very possibly illegal.

One thing I've never understood is why the federal government doesn't go after these kinds of activities more aggressively. Spamming costs companies millions of dollars in wasted productivity and in added security costs. Individuals on their home computers waste hours of time wading through spam as well. With all the billions of dollars spent on things that aren't really helping the economy, and billions more spent on helping only a few companies, why not go after some of these spammers (as well as people who create viruses and other types of malware) and help everybody?


Student Finds Intolerance at Liberty University ... From the Left

Newsbusters reports the following:

Kevin Roose managed to blend in during his single semester at Liberty University, attending lectures on the myth of evolution and the sin of homosexuality, and joining fellow students on a mission trip to evangelize partyers on spring break.

Roose had transferred to the Virginia campus from Brown University in Providence, a famously liberal member of the Ivy League. His Liberty classmates knew about the switch, but he kept something more important hidden: He planned to write a book about his experience at the school founded by fundamentalist preacher Jerry Falwell.

Roose explains the reason for his infiltration:"As a responsible American citizen, I couldn't just ignore the fact that there are a lot of Christian college students out there," said Roose, 21, now a Brown senior. "If I wanted my education to be well-rounded, I had to branch out and include these people that I just really had no exposure to.

"We have to give Roose credit here. Unlike most liberals, he actually opened himself up to contrary ideas. Something his parents found hard to understand: Roose's parents, liberal Quakers who once worked for Ralph Nader, were nervous about their son being exposed to Falwell's views. Still, Roose transferred to Liberty for the spring 2007 semester.

He was determined to not mock the school, thinking it would be too easy - and unfair. He aimed to immerse himself in the culture, examine what conservative Christians believe and see if he could find some common ground. He had less weighty questions too: How did they spend Friday nights? Did they use Facebook? Did they go on dates? Did they watch "Gossip Girl?" Did they Twitter? Did they use electricity? Did they eat with utensils?

He lined up a publisher, Grand Central Publishing, and arrived at the Lynchburg campus prepared for "hostile ideologues who spent all their time plotting abortion clinic protests and sewing Hillary Clinton voodoo dolls.

"Instead, he found that "not only are they not that, but they're rigorously normal."

GASP! But how can that be? Haven't all good liberals been taught that Liberty University students are a bunch of ignorant hateful yahoos foaming at the mouth? Kevin Roose appeared to have strayed dangerously from the Party Line.

He met students who use Bible class to score dates, apply to top law schools and fret about their futures, and who enjoy gossip, hip-hop and R-rated movies, albeit in a locked dorm room.

Stop! You're making the LU students sound too normal! A roommate he depicts as aggressively anti-gay (all names are changed in the book) is an outcast on the hall, not a role model.

But...but where's all the hate? Roose researched the school by joining as many activites as possible. He accompanied classmates on a spring break missionary trip to Daytona Beach. He visited a campus support group for chronic masturbators, where students were taught to curb impure thoughts. And he joined the choir at Falwell's Thomas Road Baptist Church.

Roose scored an interview with the preacher for the school newspaper, right before Falwell died in May of that year. Roose decided against confronting him over his views on liberals, gays and other hot-button topics, and instead learned about the man himself, discovering among other things that the pastor loved diet peach Snapple and the TV show "24.

"You mean Falwell wasn't consumed with hate 24/7 as all good liberals "know" as absolute fact?

And now something that will really disturb the "tolerant" liberals:  Once ambivalent about faith, Roose now prays to God regularly: for his own well-being and on behalf of others. He said he owns several translations of the Bible and has recently been rereading meditations from the letters of John on using love and compassion to solve cultural conflicts. He's even considering joining a church.

This latter must be very upsetting to liberals including his own parents. Sonny Boy! Where did we go wrong? To see just how upset the liberals are over this book, just read a few examples of intolerace in the Huffington Post comments section:

Wow, that must be a pretty good brainwashing program they've got there. That or this guy is weak sauce. You wouldn't catch me praying to some magic sky daddy if I spent a THOUSAND years at Liberty "University.

"He should have gone to a deprogrammer to complete the experience.

I wish he'd done an MRI before and after. It appears he's been brainwashed. Long periods of time with cults will do that.

I'm a little worried about Kevin's soul now that he's been programmed. He seems strong and intelligent though, so there's still hope for him. I'll be praying for his salvation from the radical right. I hope he's been debriefed and re-socialized into the real world. Never visit the darkside.

So it turns out that Kevin Roose did discover intolerance due to spending a semester at Liberty University and, as we can see from these comments, it is now coming from the left.

Welcome to the Brave New World of ironic reality,  Kevin.


Obama Flip-Flops on Investigation of Bush Administration

Under tremendous pressure from leftists politicians and other organizations, the Obama administration has changed its position on the potential investigation and prosecution of officials from the Bush administration over treatment of terrorists.

It appears that now the current administration is willing to allow, if not lead in, the investigation of the courageous men and women who tried to protect our nation and make us safer. Agree or not with the actual policies, this is a bad decision. These people did not violate any laws.

The same day, the Obama administration has taken the position that some 25 million illegal aliens are not actually here illegally. That's right. The official position is now that entering the country without documentation is not illegal. I've yet to read an explanation of this that makes any sense. Perhaps this has something to do with a relative of Obama being here illegally ... I mean, having entered the country without documentation.


The Democrats' Witch Hunt Against Justice

By Ken Klukowski
American Civil Rights Union

President Obama is keeping the door open on prosecuting a federal appeals judge.A Democratic U.S. senator has called for even investigating the judge’s possible impeachment.  His crime? Signing a legal memo on fighting terrorism after the 9/11 attacks. This attack on the judiciary threatens the constitutional separation of powers, and must be emphatically denounced and opposed.

On Apr. 19, Sen. Claire McCaskill (D-Mo.), told Chris Wallace on “FOX News Sunday” that impeachment should be on table for Judge Jay S. Bybee, who holds a lifetime, Senate-confirmed appointment on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Sen. McCaskill was condemning Judge Bybee for legal memos that he signed when serving in the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ), examining what powers the government had to combat terrorism.

What other conservative ideas will now result in federal judges coming under attack?

Then on Apr. 21, President Obama held a press conference, in which he said that the DOJ lawyers involved in writing these memos might be prosecuted as criminals. Judge Bybee would be among those people targeted by this threat.

Before becoming a federal appeals judge, Jay Bybee was the assistant attorney general in charge of DOJ’s elite Office of Legal Counsel (OLC). The head of OLC is the top legal advisor in the federal government. The purpose of OLC is to examine legal questions put to them by the president or attorney general. OLC thoroughly examines the issue and then writes legal memoranda giving authoritative legal advice to the government on what the law requires.

As the assistant attorney general in charge of OLC, Mr. Bybee signed such memos, which are often classified if they deal with sensitive or national security matters. These memos necessarily involve difficult calls and controversial matters.

That is why only the finest lawyers ever serve in OLC, and especially in its leadership. Former Chief Justice William Rehnquist and Justice Antonin Scalia both led OLC before their appointments to the Supreme Court, and Justice Samuel Alito served as deputy at OLC. Other OLC chiefs include former Solicitor General Theodore Olson, widely regarded as the greatest Supreme Court advocate of this generation. These men are among the best legal minds this nation has ever seen.

Judge Bybee followed in this tradition, tackling the toughest legal problems this country faces in order to uphold the Constitution and rule of law. A former law clerk for the Fourth Circuit, Judge Bybee had a distinguished career in various divisions of DOJ and as a law professor before leading OLC and then being appointed to the Ninth Circuit. He has been confirmed by the U.S. Senate twice, both as the chief of OLC and also as a federal appeals judge.

This country has understood and upheld from its earliest days that we do not impeach federal judges because we disagree with their legal opinions. The Constitution grants judges lifetime appointments, and federal judges have only been removed for egregious criminal behavior, such as now-Rep. Alcee Hastings (D-Fla.), who as a federal judge was impeached and removed for corruption and perjury. In all of American history, only seven federal judges have been removed from the bench.

But the legal opinions in question here were not even issued by Judge Bybee as a judge. They were his work product as a DOJ lawyer. We do not make it a crime for lawyers to provide expert legal advice under even ordinary circumstances. It’s outrageous to suggest that we should do so when it is a Senate-confirmed government attorney, responding to requests from the president of the United States about how he can respond to mass murder on U.S. soil.

Perhaps surprised by Sen. McCaskill’s rhetoric, Chris Wallace directly asked her if she supported impeaching Judge Bybee. “I think we have to look at it,” McCaskill responded.

This dangerously undermines national security and the constitutional separation of powers. OLC was tasked with developing a thorough legal analysis of how tough federal agents could be in questioning terrorists after the 9/11 attacks that killed 3,000 Americans. These confidential memos explored that difficult issue, and were just recently made public by the Obama White House in its efforts to radically change the policies that have kept his nation safe for almost eight years.

Judicial independence is critical to the separation of powers, an essential aspect of America’s constitutional government for over 200 years. Federal judges are only removed for serious crimes. Judge Bybee’s legal memos represent opinions held by many legal conservatives, and to criminalize them is to criminalize conservative legal views. What other conservative ideas will now result in federal judges coming under attack?

These threats of prosecution and impeachment, both of Judge Bybee and his former colleagues, are utterly appalling. It’s unfortunately possible that Judge Bybee could be impeached by Nancy Pelosi’s House, in a strictly partisan witch-hunt. But should that happen, there’s no chance that even a simple majority of the U.S. Senate would convict and remove him, far short of the two-thirds vote needed.

If Democrats pursue this, they will pay a heavy price. If President Obama and Congressional Democrats want a fight over this, then a fight is what they will get.


About This Blog

This blog is about my opinions and world view.  I am a conservative, evangelical Christian.  Generally speaking, if you post a comment, I'll allow you to express your view.  However, if you say something hateful, untruthful, or just generally something I don't like, I may remove it.

  © Blogger templates The Professional Template by 2008

Back to TOP