"Rachel Maddow Says Chris Matthews Isn't Liberal, 'He'd Get Torn Apart' by Air America Fans "
Do y'all reckon she meant that it would be unanimous and all five listeners would join in the fray?
Saturday, January 31, 2009
This is a little off my usual beat --- but I hope you'll read it!
A couple of my 'happy-go-lucky' grand kids got caught up in this modern day version of shopper mugging, so I am sharing a recent Wall Street Daily column in hopes that you will share it with your young'uns....... like the man said ----THERE OUGHTTA BE A LAW!When Interest Free Is Really, Really Expensive
Eyeing a new TV ahead of Super Bowl Sunday? Retailers' attractive interest-free deals could cost you double.
By BRETT ARENDS
Even in this economy, some will want to watch the Super Bowl on the biggest, flattest, highest-definition TV they can afford.
But there's a you-make-the-call moment before you buy.
When can a $1,500 television actually end up costing you a whole lot more? When you buy it on one of the "no interest for 36 months" promotions currently on offer – and then post one late payment at any time between now and January 2012.
These deals, on offer at many retailers around the country, may look attractive at first glance, especially in this pinched environment. Sales staff will often pitch these offers to you right at the end of the sales process, when you are at the counter getting out your wallet. You may be busy or distracted. You may be in a hurry after spending too much time in the store.
Don't do it.
These deals are the shopping-center equivalent of negative amortization loans, the mortgages that often send homeowners further into debt each month.
Consider, for example, the "interest free" deal offered by the country's biggest electronics retailer, Best Buy. The contract, unfortunately, is typical of those in the industry.
First, you don't actually get the full value of the loan interest free for 36 months. You have to pay a small amount of it back each month.
OK, that's 36 separate monthly payments.
A lot of things are going to happen between now and January 2012. You may change jobs. You may even lose your job. You may move homes. Children will get sick. Family members may be rushed to the hospital. Pets will chew the mail. Paperwork will mysteriously vanish or get thrown out by accident with old newspapers. Life is like that.
But woe betide anyone who signs up for this "no interest" deal and is then late with a single one of those monthly payments. Even by a day.
If you do, the deal suddenly gets altered. Big time.
Did we say "interest free"? Ha ha. No longer. You are now paying interest on your loan. And not just 5% or 10%.
Try rates between 21% and 30%.
No kidding. Thirty percent.
Paging Chili Palmer!
If you think the bad news stops there, think again. If you miss a payment, you don't just have to pay interest on the remainder of the loan.
The interest is backdated. To the date of purchase.
This isn't a contract with the customer. This is a contract on the customer.
(Granted, you can set up automatic monthly payments online with the retailer, which minimizes the late payment risk. But if you're ever short of cash in your bank account and the payment doesn't go through, you face the same problem.)
No one in their right mind would sign up to pay 30% annual interest for three years – least of all for a TV set that is already falling in value faster than a Las Vegas condo.
Depending on how the interest is compounded, that could more than double the total cost.
Players Prove Dance Isn't Just for the End Zone
1:40
They can play football...but can they dance? NFL players Matt Light and Justin Tuck tell us what it takes to star in a Super Bowl commercial. One provision: tutu required.
I contacted Best Buy for a comment. It responded that the company, and the credit-card issuer that finances the deal, HSBC, are "committed" to making sure the terms "are clear and useful for the consumer to make an informed decision." It added that HSBC is "always available to help customers address their specific concerns."
These deals are being offered by retailers all around the country, mostly on big-ticket items. Maybe they are supposed to take advantage of people's ignorance, or worse, their financial desperation.
Obviously some are signing up, or retailers wouldn't continue to offer these loans. Best Buy declined to say how many customers have signed up, let alone how many people have missed a payment deadline.
If you have already signed up for a deal, pay it off immediately if you can.
If you are someone caught after missing a single payment, you might try calling up and putting pressure on the lender to give you a pass. There is no guarantee whatsoever that they will do so. But it's worth a try. Sometimes they will. The squeaky wheel gets the grease.
Please pass this on to a needy young shopper ---
Friday, January 30, 2009
Hey, if you are too drunk to walk, what are you gonna do...?
Citation alleges public intoxication by Cody man on a white horse
By RUFFIN PREVOST
Gazette Wyoming Bureau
CODY - A Cody man has been cited for public intoxication while riding his horse on a busy street during a weekend snowstorm.
Police received a call at 4 p.m. Sunday from a motorist who was concerned that Benjamin Daniels, 28, was creating a road hazard by riding his horse in conditions of poor visibility.
An officer stopped Daniels to explain that drivers were having difficulty spotting his slow-moving white horse as he was riding along Yellowstone Avenue near Wal-Mart, said Assistant Police Chief George Menig.
"Because of the wind, the blowing snow and the color of the horse, we were worried he was a danger to himself and motorists," Menig said.
Steady snow, gusting winds and subzero temperatures continued throughout the day.
As police continued to observe Daniels, it was clear that he was "highly intoxicated," Menig said.
Police saw Daniels drinking beer as he moved behind Cassie's Bar and Supper Club, apparently in an attempt to avoid them, Menig said.
Although some who are cited for public intoxication are issued a ticket but not detained, police believed Daniels could not safely be released until he was sober, Menig said.
Daniels had been spotted earlier riding along Highway 120 between Road 2AB and the Shoshone River. Menig said police did not know the reason for his excursion.
Police contacted a friend of Daniels, who picked up the horse.
Menig said he could not recall any other recent citations for public intoxication while on horseback.
"This is another first for me in Park County law enforcement," he said.
By RUFFIN PREVOST
Gazette Wyoming Bureau
CODY - A Cody man has been cited for public intoxication while riding his horse on a busy street during a weekend snowstorm.
Police received a call at 4 p.m. Sunday from a motorist who was concerned that Benjamin Daniels, 28, was creating a road hazard by riding his horse in conditions of poor visibility.
An officer stopped Daniels to explain that drivers were having difficulty spotting his slow-moving white horse as he was riding along Yellowstone Avenue near Wal-Mart, said Assistant Police Chief George Menig.
"Because of the wind, the blowing snow and the color of the horse, we were worried he was a danger to himself and motorists," Menig said.
Steady snow, gusting winds and subzero temperatures continued throughout the day.
As police continued to observe Daniels, it was clear that he was "highly intoxicated," Menig said.
Police saw Daniels drinking beer as he moved behind Cassie's Bar and Supper Club, apparently in an attempt to avoid them, Menig said.
Although some who are cited for public intoxication are issued a ticket but not detained, police believed Daniels could not safely be released until he was sober, Menig said.
Daniels had been spotted earlier riding along Highway 120 between Road 2AB and the Shoshone River. Menig said police did not know the reason for his excursion.
Police contacted a friend of Daniels, who picked up the horse.
Menig said he could not recall any other recent citations for public intoxication while on horseback.
"This is another first for me in Park County law enforcement," he said.
Thursday, January 29, 2009
Annie spins 'victimness' into gold today.......
LIBERAL VICTIMHOOD: A GAME YOU CAN PLAY AT HOME
by Ann Coulter
January 28, 2009
I notice that liberals have not challenged the overall thesis of my rocketing bestseller, Guilty: Liberal 'Victims' and Their Assault on America, which is that liberals always play the victim in order to advance, win advantages and oppress others.
I guess that would be hard to do when the corrupt Democratic governor of Illinois is running around comparing himself to Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi.
Indeed, you can't turn on the TV without seeing some liberal playing victim to score the game-winning point.
Caroline Kennedy tried to Bigfoot her way into New York's Senate seat while being bathed in the Kennedy light of eternal victimhood. The New York Times began a profile of Caroline by quoting an average citizen who "turns almost maternally protective" upon hearing Caroline's name, mentioning the assassination of her father -- nearly half a century ago.
MSNBC's Chris Matthews summarily announced: "We all want to be protective of Caroline Kennedy." When one of his guests, Michael Smerconish, merely asked what her qualifications were, an appalled Matthews said: "Wow."
Political reporter Ron Brownstein elaborated on "wow," saying: "Well, that's pretty rough. That's pretty rough. I mean, but she has got, at least publicly, a very private persona, one of quiet grace and elegance and intelligence."
The Times' City Room exercised its own protective function toward Caroline by censoring any indelicate inquiries about her on its blog.
The Kennedys are the textbook case of victims who go around victimizing others. As I describe in Guilty, in 1969, Times reporter James Reston began his story about Teddy Kennedy driving a girl off the Chappaquiddick bridge with the sentence: "Tragedy has again struck the Kennedy family."
Reston waited a discreet four paragraphs before mentioning the name of the dead girl, whose "tragedy" was arguably greater. (Even the Times rewrote Reston's opening line.)
Caroline's expectation that she would sail past all other contenders and be handed a seat in the U.S. Senate is perfectly in keeping with her family tradition.
When Robert Kennedy won his Senate seat from New York, he unseated a well-liked Republican, Kenneth Barnard Keating, who had represented New York in Congress for more than a decade.
Meanwhile, Robert Kennedy hadn't lived in New York since he was 12 years old. But the allegedly sophisticated voters of New York were awed by the Kennedy name, and dumped a popular native son.
A deputy manager of Kennedy's campaign explained that the carpetbagger accusation could not withstand the image of JFK's assassination a year earlier: "You couldn't vote against Robert Kennedy without seeing the presence of John Kennedy."
With New York's record of swooning for celebrity victims, it was a snap for another carpetbagger, Hillary Clinton, to push aside veteran New York Democrats to win her Senate seat in 2000.
When Gov. David Paterson ended the Kennedy soap opera by appointing Democratic congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand, her Democratic colleague, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, blanketed the airwaves, threatening to challenge Gillibrand in the next election because of her NRA-approved stand on guns.
McCarthy explained, "My voice is for the victims."
The only reason McCarthy was elected to Congress in the first place is that her husband and son were shot by a crazed gunman on the Long Island Rail Road in 1993. Colin Ferguson's shooting spree wasn't stopped sooner because none of the passengers had guns. As has been demonstrated beyond dispute at this point, armed citizens save lives.
In a comprehensive study of all public multiple shooting incidents in America between 1977 and 1999, economists John Lott and Bill Landes found that the only public policy that reduced both the incidence and casualties of such shootings were concealed-carry laws. Not only are there 60 percent fewer gun massacres after states adopt concealed-carry laws, but the death and injury rate of such rampages are reduced by 80 percent.
Rep. McCarthy claims to "speak for the victims" by promoting policies that will provably create a lot more victims.
And all of this occurs in a year when the mainstream media is agog with their discovery that a black man can be elected president in America! By being elected president, Obama overcame the massive racial hatred that existed only in liberal imaginations.
I don't know a single conservative who thought America wouldn't elect a black man.
If Republicans had run Colin Powell in 1996 -- back when he was a Republican -- he would have been the first black president. As Powell himself said, he received the strongest support from Southern white men, who admired his military background.
The first serious black candidate to run for president in America won, so blacks are one-for-one in a country liberals would have us believe is teeming with Ku Klux Klanners.
Throughout Obama's entire life, doors were opened for him, his college applications smiled upon and favors bestowed simply because he is black -- the original victim category in America. Being black is the highest victim caste because of blacks' authentic victimhood: The nation once tolerated slavery and Jim Crow.
But ironically, Obama's father is from Africa: He never suffered from the ancient policies that, today, give his son Victim Gold. To the contrary, if Obama's African relatives had anything to do with slavery, it was on the business end.
by Ann Coulter
January 28, 2009
I notice that liberals have not challenged the overall thesis of my rocketing bestseller, Guilty: Liberal 'Victims' and Their Assault on America, which is that liberals always play the victim in order to advance, win advantages and oppress others.
I guess that would be hard to do when the corrupt Democratic governor of Illinois is running around comparing himself to Nelson Mandela, Martin Luther King Jr. and Mahatma Gandhi.
Indeed, you can't turn on the TV without seeing some liberal playing victim to score the game-winning point.
Caroline Kennedy tried to Bigfoot her way into New York's Senate seat while being bathed in the Kennedy light of eternal victimhood. The New York Times began a profile of Caroline by quoting an average citizen who "turns almost maternally protective" upon hearing Caroline's name, mentioning the assassination of her father -- nearly half a century ago.
MSNBC's Chris Matthews summarily announced: "We all want to be protective of Caroline Kennedy." When one of his guests, Michael Smerconish, merely asked what her qualifications were, an appalled Matthews said: "Wow."
Political reporter Ron Brownstein elaborated on "wow," saying: "Well, that's pretty rough. That's pretty rough. I mean, but she has got, at least publicly, a very private persona, one of quiet grace and elegance and intelligence."
The Times' City Room exercised its own protective function toward Caroline by censoring any indelicate inquiries about her on its blog.
The Kennedys are the textbook case of victims who go around victimizing others. As I describe in Guilty, in 1969, Times reporter James Reston began his story about Teddy Kennedy driving a girl off the Chappaquiddick bridge with the sentence: "Tragedy has again struck the Kennedy family."
Reston waited a discreet four paragraphs before mentioning the name of the dead girl, whose "tragedy" was arguably greater. (Even the Times rewrote Reston's opening line.)
Caroline's expectation that she would sail past all other contenders and be handed a seat in the U.S. Senate is perfectly in keeping with her family tradition.
When Robert Kennedy won his Senate seat from New York, he unseated a well-liked Republican, Kenneth Barnard Keating, who had represented New York in Congress for more than a decade.
Meanwhile, Robert Kennedy hadn't lived in New York since he was 12 years old. But the allegedly sophisticated voters of New York were awed by the Kennedy name, and dumped a popular native son.
A deputy manager of Kennedy's campaign explained that the carpetbagger accusation could not withstand the image of JFK's assassination a year earlier: "You couldn't vote against Robert Kennedy without seeing the presence of John Kennedy."
With New York's record of swooning for celebrity victims, it was a snap for another carpetbagger, Hillary Clinton, to push aside veteran New York Democrats to win her Senate seat in 2000.
When Gov. David Paterson ended the Kennedy soap opera by appointing Democratic congresswoman Kirsten Gillibrand, her Democratic colleague, Rep. Carolyn McCarthy, blanketed the airwaves, threatening to challenge Gillibrand in the next election because of her NRA-approved stand on guns.
McCarthy explained, "My voice is for the victims."
The only reason McCarthy was elected to Congress in the first place is that her husband and son were shot by a crazed gunman on the Long Island Rail Road in 1993. Colin Ferguson's shooting spree wasn't stopped sooner because none of the passengers had guns. As has been demonstrated beyond dispute at this point, armed citizens save lives.
In a comprehensive study of all public multiple shooting incidents in America between 1977 and 1999, economists John Lott and Bill Landes found that the only public policy that reduced both the incidence and casualties of such shootings were concealed-carry laws. Not only are there 60 percent fewer gun massacres after states adopt concealed-carry laws, but the death and injury rate of such rampages are reduced by 80 percent.
Rep. McCarthy claims to "speak for the victims" by promoting policies that will provably create a lot more victims.
And all of this occurs in a year when the mainstream media is agog with their discovery that a black man can be elected president in America! By being elected president, Obama overcame the massive racial hatred that existed only in liberal imaginations.
I don't know a single conservative who thought America wouldn't elect a black man.
If Republicans had run Colin Powell in 1996 -- back when he was a Republican -- he would have been the first black president. As Powell himself said, he received the strongest support from Southern white men, who admired his military background.
The first serious black candidate to run for president in America won, so blacks are one-for-one in a country liberals would have us believe is teeming with Ku Klux Klanners.
Throughout Obama's entire life, doors were opened for him, his college applications smiled upon and favors bestowed simply because he is black -- the original victim category in America. Being black is the highest victim caste because of blacks' authentic victimhood: The nation once tolerated slavery and Jim Crow.
But ironically, Obama's father is from Africa: He never suffered from the ancient policies that, today, give his son Victim Gold. To the contrary, if Obama's African relatives had anything to do with slavery, it was on the business end.
Wednesday, January 28, 2009
Are we still getting 'two for the price of one'???
That was Bubba and Hellary's claim when he was President. Now she is our Secretary of State - hired to be our 'Diplomat in Chief'! But whoa Pilgrims, what's this I see coming across the lines this morning?WASHINGTON (AP) - Financial documents filed by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton show that her husband earned nearly $6 million in speaking fees last year, nearly all of it from foreign companies.
The documents obtained Tuesday by The Associated Press indicate that $5 million of the former president's reported $5.7 million in 2008 honoraria came from foreign sources. They included Kuwait's National Bank, a Hong Kong-based company, and other firms and groups in Canada, Germany, India, Malaysia, Mexico and Portugal.
So now I scratch my ole' head and wonder out loud -- if one of these countries or companies buy Bubba, does Hellary come along with the package - a 'Twofer'????
Tuesday, January 27, 2009
Obama makes the front page of another magazine.....
by Frank JamesWe all know that President Barack Obama has assumed the presidency at a time when that pressure cooker of a job is even more so right now because of the worst recession since the Great Depression and two foreign wars.
So Mad Magazine's new Obama cover spoofs the notion of the president's first 100 days but accelerates it to his first "100 minutes."
The caricature shows a completely stressed-out Obama puffing on several cancer sticks simultaneously as he holds his head in his hands. (That's what happens when the world knows your're a reformed smoker who admits to occasional lapses.) An open bottle of Pepto Bismol is on the desk, as is a bottle of Excedrin.
Meanwhile, splayed out on the desk before Obama are newspapers (including the Chicago Tribune!) with blaring headlines like "Automakers Broke!" "Taliban Threat!" and "Dow Crashes!"
The only thing the artist missed was the chance to take a swipe at the president for those those Alfred E. Newman ears of his. Talk about your low-hanging fruit.
Separately, Mad will have a lot fewer cracks at Obama. DC Comics, Mad's publisher, has announced that the magazine will be published on a quarterly basis instead of monthly, thanks to the economy and the advertising revenue woes afflicting the entire media industry.
ACORN (remember them?) getting $4 Billion payback from Obama....!
House GOP leader John Boehner’s office reports that the left-wing voter fraud/illegal alien/housing entitlement racketeers at ACORN “could get billions” more in federal taxpayer funding from the Democrats’ stimulus bill.Incredibly, the Democrats’ bill makes groups like ACORN eligible for a $4.19 billion pot of money for “neighborhood stabilization activities.”
Not so “incredible.” More like “inevitable.” As in inevitable lard-up.
Funds for this purpose were authorized in the Housing and Economic Recovery Act, signed into law in 2008. However, these funds were limited to state and local governments. Now House Democrats are taking the unprecedented step of making ACORN and other groups eligible for these funds:
“For a further additional amount for ‘Community Development Fund,’ $4,190,000,000, to be used for neighborhood stabilization activities related to emergency assistance for the redevelopment of abandoned and foreclosed homes as authorized under division B, title III of the Housing and Economic Recovery Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–289), of which—
“(1) not less than $3,440,000,000 shall be allocated by a competition for which eligible entities shall be States, units of general local government, and nonprofit entities or consortia of nonprofit entities[.]”
“(2) up to $750,000,000 shall be awarded by competition to nonprofit entities or consortia of nonprofit entities to provide community stabilization assistance […]”
The House Democrats’ trillion dollar spending bill also includes $1 billion for the Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program. CDBG funds are given by the federal government to state and local governments which often contract with nonprofits for services related to the purpose of the grant.
ACORN knows how to secure CDBG funds. Audit reports filed by ACORN’s headquarters with the Office of Management and Budget show that ACORN spent $1,588,599 in Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program funds from FY 2003 through FY 2007. It is not clear from these records when or from what source the funds were awarded to ACORN. It is also not clear whether ACORN chapters or affiliates have received CDBG grants on their own.
House Republican Leader John Boehner (R-OH) repeatedly urged President George W. Bush and other federal officials to withhold taxpayer funds from ACORN, including $17.2 million in federal grants awarded in December 2008 after numerous allegations of wrongdoing in connection with ACORN’s election activities were reported by the news media.
As I’ve reported previously, the Generational Theft Act and other Democrat spending boondoggles will serve as giant slush funds for far Left non-profits. Republicans failed to do anything to stop it when they held the White House.
To the victors go the spoils. Stolen from the pockets of your children and grandchildren.
Pilgrims... if you haven't had reason to call, e-mail, or write your congressmen and senators lately --- this would be a hell a good time to start!! If these yahoos could steal enough votes to effect this last election - imagine what illegal mischief they could get up to with Four Billion Bucks in their jeans...................... Thanks to Michelle Malkin for lighting this up!!
Monday, January 26, 2009
Who said the 'O' Man is hard to get to inverview?????
President Obama Does First Formal TV Interview as President with Al-ArabiyaJanuary 26, 2009
As special envoy to the Middle East, George Mitchell heads off to the region to begin work on negotiating a cease fire between Israel and the Palestinians, President Obama has sat for his first formal TV interview with the Arabic cable TV network Al-Arabiya, ABC News has learned.
The interview was taped this evening and is set to air at 11 pm ET, as Mitchell is in the air and on his way to the region.
Based in Dubai, Al-Arabiya estimates that it has a potential audience exceeding 23 million in the Gulf region.
-- jpt
While you were watching Washington last Tuesday -- this scarey scene happened elsewhere!
Obama's triumphal entry: Gentle, riding on donkey
Artist creates messianic parade as 'adorers' wave palm fronds
By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
DES MOINES, Iowa – Amid the pomp, circumstance and celebration of welcoming a new president, an artist in Iowa created an inaugural parade sure to draw attention, even hundreds of miles from Washington, D.C.: Barack Obama, riding on a donkey, complete with waving palm fronds and "Secret Service" escort.
As WND reported, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan declared in October that when Obama talks, "the Messiah is absolutely speaking." But artist Matthew J. Clark's parade – marching Obama through the streets of Des Moines in similar fashion to Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem – takes the messianic imagery even farther.
The Bible describes Jesus' procession into Jerusalem in the 21st chapter of Matthew as the fulfillment of the prophet Zechariah's words, "Behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass," or as the New International Version paraphrases, "gentle, and riding on a donkey." As the celebrated Messiah entered the city, the Bible also tells of adorers spreading their cloaks at Jesus' feet and waving palm fronds.
Fred Love, a reporter for Lee Enterprises whose account was published by the Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier, witnessed a strange sight earlier this week, as a sculpture of Obama marched down Des Moines' Locust Street in similar fashion.
"Progressing slowly down Locust and holding up traffic was a rubbery Barack Obama sculpture saddled on the back of a donkey," Love writes. "A pair of black SUVs led the procession and two more trailed behind, Secret Service-style. A couple of the SUVs were decked out with tiny American flags."
Love continues, "A few men led the Donkey down the street and a woman made her way along the sidewalk, keeping up with the procession and handing out palm branches to the few perplexed onlookers who had gathered on the sidewalks to see what the fuss was about."
Clark called the marching artwork "A Simulacrum of Hope: Simulation of the Triumphal Entry of the Christ."
The American Heritage Dictionary defines the word "simulacrum" as "an image or representation; or an unreal or vague semblance," leaving the viewer to interpret whether Clark considers the parade a celebration of Obama or a mockery of Obama's more adoring supporters.
Artist creates messianic parade as 'adorers' wave palm fronds
By Drew Zahn
© 2009 WorldNetDaily
DES MOINES, Iowa – Amid the pomp, circumstance and celebration of welcoming a new president, an artist in Iowa created an inaugural parade sure to draw attention, even hundreds of miles from Washington, D.C.: Barack Obama, riding on a donkey, complete with waving palm fronds and "Secret Service" escort.
As WND reported, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan declared in October that when Obama talks, "the Messiah is absolutely speaking." But artist Matthew J. Clark's parade – marching Obama through the streets of Des Moines in similar fashion to Jesus' triumphal entry into Jerusalem – takes the messianic imagery even farther.
The Bible describes Jesus' procession into Jerusalem in the 21st chapter of Matthew as the fulfillment of the prophet Zechariah's words, "Behold, thy King cometh unto thee: he is just, and having salvation; lowly, and riding upon an ass," or as the New International Version paraphrases, "gentle, and riding on a donkey." As the celebrated Messiah entered the city, the Bible also tells of adorers spreading their cloaks at Jesus' feet and waving palm fronds.
Fred Love, a reporter for Lee Enterprises whose account was published by the Waterloo-Cedar Falls Courier, witnessed a strange sight earlier this week, as a sculpture of Obama marched down Des Moines' Locust Street in similar fashion.
"Progressing slowly down Locust and holding up traffic was a rubbery Barack Obama sculpture saddled on the back of a donkey," Love writes. "A pair of black SUVs led the procession and two more trailed behind, Secret Service-style. A couple of the SUVs were decked out with tiny American flags."
Love continues, "A few men led the Donkey down the street and a woman made her way along the sidewalk, keeping up with the procession and handing out palm branches to the few perplexed onlookers who had gathered on the sidewalks to see what the fuss was about."
Clark called the marching artwork "A Simulacrum of Hope: Simulation of the Triumphal Entry of the Christ."
The American Heritage Dictionary defines the word "simulacrum" as "an image or representation; or an unreal or vague semblance," leaving the viewer to interpret whether Clark considers the parade a celebration of Obama or a mockery of Obama's more adoring supporters.
This should be an editorial cartoon --- but it's not!!!!!
JUST PLANE DESPICABLE
By JENNIFER KEIL and CHUCK BENNETT
January 26, 2009 --
Beleaguered Citigroup is upgrading its mile-high club with a brand-new $50 million corporate jet - only this time, it's the taxpayers who are getting screwed.
Even though the bank's stock is as cheap as a gallon of gas and it's burning through a $45 billion taxpayer-funded rescue, the airhead execs pushed through the purchase of a new Dassault Falcon 7X, according to a source familiar with the deal.
The French-made luxury jet seats up to 12 in a plush interior with leather seats, sofas and a customizable entertainment center, according to Dassault's sales literature. It can cruise 5,950 miles before refueling and has a top speed of 559 mph.
There are just nine of these top-of-the-line models in the United States, with Dassault's European factory churning out three to four 7Xs a month.
Citigroup decided to get its new wings two years ago, when the financial-services giant was flush with cash, but it still intends to take possession of the jet this year despite its current woes, the source said.
By JENNIFER KEIL and CHUCK BENNETT
January 26, 2009 --
Beleaguered Citigroup is upgrading its mile-high club with a brand-new $50 million corporate jet - only this time, it's the taxpayers who are getting screwed.
Even though the bank's stock is as cheap as a gallon of gas and it's burning through a $45 billion taxpayer-funded rescue, the airhead execs pushed through the purchase of a new Dassault Falcon 7X, according to a source familiar with the deal.
The French-made luxury jet seats up to 12 in a plush interior with leather seats, sofas and a customizable entertainment center, according to Dassault's sales literature. It can cruise 5,950 miles before refueling and has a top speed of 559 mph.
There are just nine of these top-of-the-line models in the United States, with Dassault's European factory churning out three to four 7Xs a month.
Citigroup decided to get its new wings two years ago, when the financial-services giant was flush with cash, but it still intends to take possession of the jet this year despite its current woes, the source said.
Thanks and a tip o' the stetson to the NY Post for this.(Click on pic to read small print, then hit return arrow)
A Primer for us Pilgrims that ain't smarter'n a 5th grader..
My New Spread the Wealth Grading Policy
Mike S. Adams
Good afternoon students! I’m writing you this email to announce that I’m making some changes in the grading policies I announced two weeks ago when I sent an email with an attached course syllabus. As you know, we now have a new president and I thought it would be nice to align our class policies with some of the policies he will be implementing over the next four years. These will be changes you can believe in and, I hope, changes that will inspire hope, which is our most important American value.
Previously, I announced that I would use a ten-point grading scale, which means that 90% of 100 is an “A,” 80% is a “B,” 70% is a “C,” and 60% is enough for a passing grade of “D.” I also announced that I will refrain from using a “plus/minus” system – even though the faculty handbook gives me that option.
The new policy I am announcing today is that those who score above 90 on the first exam will have points deducted and given to students at the bottom of the grade distribution. For example, if a student gets a 99, I will then deduct nine points and give them to the person with the lowest grade. If a person scores 95 I will then deduct five points and give them to the person with the second lowest grade. If someone scores 93 I will then deduct three points and give them to the next lowest person. And so on.
My point, rather obviously, is that any points above 90 are really not needed since you have an “A” regardless of whether you score 90 or 99. Nor am I convinced that you need to “save” those points for a rainy day. Those who are failing, however, need the points – not unlike the failing banks and automakers that need money to avoid the danger of bankruptcy.
After our second examination, I intend to take a more complex approach to the practice of grade redistribution. I will not be looking at your second test scores but, instead, at the average of your first two test scores. In the process, I may well decide to start taking some points from students in the “B” range. For example, if someone has an average of 85 after two tests I may take a few points and give them away to someone who is failing or who is in danger of failing. I think this is fair because the person with an 85 average is probably unlikely to climb up to an “A” or fall down to a “C.” I may be wrong in some individual cases but, of course, my principal concern is not the individual.
By the end of the semester I will abandon any formal guidelines and just redistribute points in a way that seems just, or fair, to me. I will not rely upon any standards other than my very strong and passionate feelings concerning social justice. In the process, I will not merely seek to eliminate inequality. I will also seek to eliminate the possibility of failure.
I know some are concerned that my system may impact their lives in a very profound way. Grade redistribution will undoubtedly cause some grade point average redistribution. And this, in turn, will mean that some people will not get into the law school or medical school of their choice. Or maybe some day you will be represented by a lawyer – or operated on by a doctor – who is not of the highest quality.
These are all, of course, legitimate long-term concerns. But I believe we need to remain focused on the short term. I think my new system will immediately help the self-esteem of those failing or in danger of failing. It should also help the self-esteem of those who are not in danger of failing. After all, it just feels good to give – even if the giving is compelled and not really “giving” in the literal sense.
Finally, I want to note that this idea was also inspired by a former presidential candidate named George McGovern. In a debate with the late William F. Buckley, McGovern said that people who earn more money should pay more taxes. Buckley replied that the rich do pay more in taxes – and more as a percentage of their income. McGovern looked confused.
But I don’t think there’s anything confusing about our pending social responsibilities. Whether we are talking about income or grades it does not matter how much or what percentage we are giving. The question is and should always be “Can we give more?”
Mike S. Adams
January 26, 2009
Good afternoon students! I’m writing you this email to announce that I’m making some changes in the grading policies I announced two weeks ago when I sent an email with an attached course syllabus. As you know, we now have a new president and I thought it would be nice to align our class policies with some of the policies he will be implementing over the next four years. These will be changes you can believe in and, I hope, changes that will inspire hope, which is our most important American value.Previously, I announced that I would use a ten-point grading scale, which means that 90% of 100 is an “A,” 80% is a “B,” 70% is a “C,” and 60% is enough for a passing grade of “D.” I also announced that I will refrain from using a “plus/minus” system – even though the faculty handbook gives me that option.
The new policy I am announcing today is that those who score above 90 on the first exam will have points deducted and given to students at the bottom of the grade distribution. For example, if a student gets a 99, I will then deduct nine points and give them to the person with the lowest grade. If a person scores 95 I will then deduct five points and give them to the person with the second lowest grade. If someone scores 93 I will then deduct three points and give them to the next lowest person. And so on.
My point, rather obviously, is that any points above 90 are really not needed since you have an “A” regardless of whether you score 90 or 99. Nor am I convinced that you need to “save” those points for a rainy day. Those who are failing, however, need the points – not unlike the failing banks and automakers that need money to avoid the danger of bankruptcy.
After our second examination, I intend to take a more complex approach to the practice of grade redistribution. I will not be looking at your second test scores but, instead, at the average of your first two test scores. In the process, I may well decide to start taking some points from students in the “B” range. For example, if someone has an average of 85 after two tests I may take a few points and give them away to someone who is failing or who is in danger of failing. I think this is fair because the person with an 85 average is probably unlikely to climb up to an “A” or fall down to a “C.” I may be wrong in some individual cases but, of course, my principal concern is not the individual.
By the end of the semester I will abandon any formal guidelines and just redistribute points in a way that seems just, or fair, to me. I will not rely upon any standards other than my very strong and passionate feelings concerning social justice. In the process, I will not merely seek to eliminate inequality. I will also seek to eliminate the possibility of failure.
I know some are concerned that my system may impact their lives in a very profound way. Grade redistribution will undoubtedly cause some grade point average redistribution. And this, in turn, will mean that some people will not get into the law school or medical school of their choice. Or maybe some day you will be represented by a lawyer – or operated on by a doctor – who is not of the highest quality.
These are all, of course, legitimate long-term concerns. But I believe we need to remain focused on the short term. I think my new system will immediately help the self-esteem of those failing or in danger of failing. It should also help the self-esteem of those who are not in danger of failing. After all, it just feels good to give – even if the giving is compelled and not really “giving” in the literal sense.
Finally, I want to note that this idea was also inspired by a former presidential candidate named George McGovern. In a debate with the late William F. Buckley, McGovern said that people who earn more money should pay more taxes. Buckley replied that the rich do pay more in taxes – and more as a percentage of their income. McGovern looked confused.
But I don’t think there’s anything confusing about our pending social responsibilities. Whether we are talking about income or grades it does not matter how much or what percentage we are giving. The question is and should always be “Can we give more?”
Pelosi boosts birth ban as burden bailout......
PELOSI SAYS BIRTH CONTROL WILL HELP ECONOMY
Jan 25 2009 (Drudge report)
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi boldly defended a move to add birth control funding to the new economic "stimulus" package, claiming "contraception will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."
Pelosi, the mother of 5 children and 6 grandchildren, who once said, "Nothing in my life will ever, ever compare to being a mom," seemed to imply babies are somehow a burden on the treasury.
The revelation came during an exchange Sunday morning on ABC's THIS WEEK.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?
PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?
PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.
(end quote)
,,,,,,,,,, and this ignoramus Californian, wild eyed liberal is the Dictator of the House? God save us, 'cause no one else will!!
Jan 25 2009 (Drudge report)
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi boldly defended a move to add birth control funding to the new economic "stimulus" package, claiming "contraception will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government."
Pelosi, the mother of 5 children and 6 grandchildren, who once said, "Nothing in my life will ever, ever compare to being a mom," seemed to imply babies are somehow a burden on the treasury.
The revelation came during an exchange Sunday morning on ABC's THIS WEEK.
STEPHANOPOULOS: Hundreds of millions of dollars to expand family planning services. How is that stimulus?
PELOSI: Well, the family planning services reduce cost. They reduce cost. The states are in terrible fiscal budget crises now and part of what we do for children's health, education and some of those elements are to help the states meet their financial needs. One of those - one of the initiatives you mentioned, the contraception, will reduce costs to the states and to the federal government.
STEPHANOPOULOS: So no apologies for that?
PELOSI: No apologies. No. we have to deal with the consequences of the downturn in our economy.
(end quote)
,,,,,,,,,, and this ignoramus Californian, wild eyed liberal is the Dictator of the House? God save us, 'cause no one else will!!
Sunday, January 25, 2009
A boss who tells it like it is!!!!!!!!!!
All those Pilgrims out there in 'flyover' land ought to read this letter carefully - and then take a look to their left and their right tomorrow at work. And maybe rethink their idiot self-destructive voting patterns in local and national elections......
To All My Valued Employees,
There have been some rumblings around the office about the future of this company, and more specifically, your job. As you know, the economy has changed for the worse and presents many challenges. However, the good news is this: The economy doesn't pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is the changing political landscape in this country.
However, let me tell you some little tidbits of fact which might help you decide what is in your best interests.
First, while it is easy to spew rhetoric that casts employers against employees, you have to understand that for every business owner there is a back story. This back story is often neglected and overshadowed by what you see and hear. Sure, you see me park my Mercedes outside. You've seen my big home at last years Christmas party. I'm sure; all these flashy icons of luxury conjure up some idealized thoughts about my life.
However, what you don't see is the back story. I started this company
28 years ago. At that time, I lived in a 300 square foot studio apartment for 3 years. My entire living apartment was converted into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you.
My diet consisted of Ramen Pride noodles because every dollar I spent went back into this company. I drove a rusty Toyota Corolla with a defective transmission. I didn't have time to date. Often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business - hard work, discipline, and sacrifice.
Meanwhile, my friends got jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a modest $50K a year and spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. Instead of hitting the Nordstrom's for the latest hot fashion item, I was trolling through the discount store extracting any clothing item that didn't look like it was birthed in the 70's. My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into a business with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford these luxuries my friends supposedly had.
So, while you physically arrive at the office at 9am, mentally check in at about noon, and then leave at 5pm, I don't. There is no "off" button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have the freedom. I eat, and breathe this company every minute of the day. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. Every day this business is attached to my hip like a 1 year old special-needs child. You, of course, only see the fruits of that garden - the nice house, the Mercedes, the vacations ... you never realize the back story and the sacrifices I've made.
Now, the economy is falling apart and I, the guy that made all the right decisions and saved his money, have to bail-out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed a decade of my life for.
Yes, business ownership has is benefits but the price I've paid is steep and not without wounds.
Unfortunately, the cost of running this business, and employing you, is starting to eclipse the threshold of marginal benefit and let me tell you why:
I am being taxed to death and the government thinks I don't pay enough. I have state taxes. Federal taxes. Property taxes. Sales and use taxes. Payroll taxes. Workers compensation taxes. Unemployment taxes. Taxes on taxes. I have to hire a tax man to manage all these taxes and then guess what? I have to pay taxes for employing him. Government mandates and regulations and all the accounting that goes with it, now occupy most of my time. On Oct 15th, I wrote a check to the US Treasury for $288,000 for quarterly taxes. You know what my "stimulus" check was? Zero. Nada. Zilch.
The question I have is this: Who is stimulating the economy? Me, the guy who has provided 14 people good paying jobs and serves over 2,200,000 people per year with a flourishing business? Or, the single mother sitting at home pregnant with her fourth child waiting for her next welfare check? Obviously, government feels the latter is the economic stimulus of this country.
The fact is, if I deducted (Read: Stole) 50% of your paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I mean, why should you? That's nuts. Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, I agree which is why your job is in jeopardy.
Here is what many of you don't understand ... to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Had suddenly government mandated to me that I didn't need to pay taxes, guess what? Instead of depositing that $288,000 into the Washington black-hole, I would have spent it, hired more employees, and generated substantial economic growth. My employees would have enjoyed the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But you can forget it now.
When you have a comatose man on the verge of death, you don't defibrillate and shock his thumb thinking that will bring him back to life, do you? Or, do you defibrillate his heart? Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate it, not kill it. Suddenly, the power brokers in Washington believe the poor of America are the essential drivers of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change you can keep.
So where am I going with all this?
It's quite simple.
If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, my reaction will be swift and simple. I fire you. I fire your co-workers. You can then plead with the government to pay for your mortgage, your SUV, and your child's future. Frankly, it isn't my problem any more.
Then, I will close this company down, move to another country, and retire. You see, I'm done. I'm done with a country that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, will be my citizenship.
So, if you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the economy; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country, steamrolled the constitution, and will have changed its landscape forever. If that happens, you can find me sitting on a beach, retired, and with no employees to worry about ...
Signed,
Your boss
To All My Valued Employees,
There have been some rumblings around the office about the future of this company, and more specifically, your job. As you know, the economy has changed for the worse and presents many challenges. However, the good news is this: The economy doesn't pose a threat to your job. What does threaten your job however, is the changing political landscape in this country.
However, let me tell you some little tidbits of fact which might help you decide what is in your best interests.
First, while it is easy to spew rhetoric that casts employers against employees, you have to understand that for every business owner there is a back story. This back story is often neglected and overshadowed by what you see and hear. Sure, you see me park my Mercedes outside. You've seen my big home at last years Christmas party. I'm sure; all these flashy icons of luxury conjure up some idealized thoughts about my life.
However, what you don't see is the back story. I started this company
28 years ago. At that time, I lived in a 300 square foot studio apartment for 3 years. My entire living apartment was converted into an office so I could put forth 100% effort into building a company, which by the way, would eventually employ you.
My diet consisted of Ramen Pride noodles because every dollar I spent went back into this company. I drove a rusty Toyota Corolla with a defective transmission. I didn't have time to date. Often times, I stayed home on weekends, while my friends went out drinking and partying. In fact, I was married to my business - hard work, discipline, and sacrifice.
Meanwhile, my friends got jobs. They worked 40 hours a week and made a modest $50K a year and spent every dime they earned. They drove flashy cars and lived in expensive homes and wore fancy designer clothes. Instead of hitting the Nordstrom's for the latest hot fashion item, I was trolling through the discount store extracting any clothing item that didn't look like it was birthed in the 70's. My friends refinanced their mortgages and lived a life of luxury. I, however, did not. I put my time, my money, and my life into a business with a vision that eventually, some day, I too, will be able to afford these luxuries my friends supposedly had.
So, while you physically arrive at the office at 9am, mentally check in at about noon, and then leave at 5pm, I don't. There is no "off" button for me. When you leave the office, you are done and you have a weekend all to yourself. I unfortunately do not have the freedom. I eat, and breathe this company every minute of the day. There is no rest. There is no weekend. There is no happy hour. Every day this business is attached to my hip like a 1 year old special-needs child. You, of course, only see the fruits of that garden - the nice house, the Mercedes, the vacations ... you never realize the back story and the sacrifices I've made.
Now, the economy is falling apart and I, the guy that made all the right decisions and saved his money, have to bail-out all the people who didn't. The people that overspent their paychecks suddenly feel entitled to the same luxuries that I earned and sacrificed a decade of my life for.
Yes, business ownership has is benefits but the price I've paid is steep and not without wounds.
Unfortunately, the cost of running this business, and employing you, is starting to eclipse the threshold of marginal benefit and let me tell you why:
I am being taxed to death and the government thinks I don't pay enough. I have state taxes. Federal taxes. Property taxes. Sales and use taxes. Payroll taxes. Workers compensation taxes. Unemployment taxes. Taxes on taxes. I have to hire a tax man to manage all these taxes and then guess what? I have to pay taxes for employing him. Government mandates and regulations and all the accounting that goes with it, now occupy most of my time. On Oct 15th, I wrote a check to the US Treasury for $288,000 for quarterly taxes. You know what my "stimulus" check was? Zero. Nada. Zilch.
The question I have is this: Who is stimulating the economy? Me, the guy who has provided 14 people good paying jobs and serves over 2,200,000 people per year with a flourishing business? Or, the single mother sitting at home pregnant with her fourth child waiting for her next welfare check? Obviously, government feels the latter is the economic stimulus of this country.
The fact is, if I deducted (Read: Stole) 50% of your paycheck you'd quit and you wouldn't work here. I mean, why should you? That's nuts. Who wants to get rewarded only 50% of their hard work? Well, I agree which is why your job is in jeopardy.
Here is what many of you don't understand ... to stimulate the economy you need to stimulate what runs the economy. Had suddenly government mandated to me that I didn't need to pay taxes, guess what? Instead of depositing that $288,000 into the Washington black-hole, I would have spent it, hired more employees, and generated substantial economic growth. My employees would have enjoyed the wealth of that tax cut in the form of promotions and better salaries. But you can forget it now.
When you have a comatose man on the verge of death, you don't defibrillate and shock his thumb thinking that will bring him back to life, do you? Or, do you defibrillate his heart? Business is at the heart of America and always has been. To restart it, you must stimulate it, not kill it. Suddenly, the power brokers in Washington believe the poor of America are the essential drivers of the American economic engine. Nothing could be further from the truth and this is the type of change you can keep.
So where am I going with all this?
It's quite simple.
If any new taxes are levied on me, or my company, my reaction will be swift and simple. I fire you. I fire your co-workers. You can then plead with the government to pay for your mortgage, your SUV, and your child's future. Frankly, it isn't my problem any more.
Then, I will close this company down, move to another country, and retire. You see, I'm done. I'm done with a country that penalizes the productive and gives to the unproductive. My motivation to work and to provide jobs will be destroyed, and with it, will be my citizenship.
So, if you lose your job, it won't be at the hands of the economy; it will be at the hands of a political hurricane that swept through this country, steamrolled the constitution, and will have changed its landscape forever. If that happens, you can find me sitting on a beach, retired, and with no employees to worry about ...
Signed,
Your boss
NY Times on hard times --- what a shame.....
The Collapse of the Left-Wing Media
Bill O'Reilly
January 24, 2009
There is much irony in the fact that while liberals have won power in Washington big time, left-wing media are collapsing all over the place. In the last couple of weeks, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the Minneapolis Star Tribune and the mother of all liberal publications, The New York Times, each has issued SOS announcements.
Bill O'Reilly
January 24, 2009
There is much irony in the fact that while liberals have won power in Washington big time, left-wing media are collapsing all over the place. In the last couple of weeks, the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the Minneapolis Star Tribune and the mother of all liberal publications, The New York Times, each has issued SOS announcements.The Seattle paper will cease publication in March unless a buyer is found. Even though it can't pay its bills, the Post-Intelligencer should have been inducted into the left-wing hall of fame after its publisher told the FBI to buzz off when the agency asked for media help in locating two possible terror suspects.
The Minneapolis paper, dubbed the Red Star by some in Minnesota, filed for bankruptcy after its earnings dropped more than 50 percent in one year. That despite the presidential vote and a vicious election between Sen. Norm Coleman and Al Franken.
As for The New York Times: It is Twilight Zone time. The paper was already trying to use equity in its Manhattan office building to pay debts, and now has borrowed $250 million from Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim Helu. And get this: The Times is paying old Carlos an astounding 14 percent interest. What, was Tony Soprano not available? Does the description "loan shark" mean anything to the ideologues running the Times? The prime lending rate in America is 3.25 percent, and these guys are paying Carlos Slim 14 percent. Wow.
On the TV front, the uber-liberal, Bush-hating MSNBC network ranked 31 in total day ratings for the first two weeks of January. I think that's right behind the "Roller Derby Channel." General Electric, which owns NBC, has taken a sharp turn to the left in its corporate philosophy and, at the same time, is watching its stock price decline from about $50 a share to around $13. The fact that GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt still has his job ranks up there with the miracle of the U.S. Airways water landing.
Why are the liberal media taking a pounding when the left now controls Congress and the Oval Office? It may be because of the economy. After the recession blindsided the folks last fall, anger filled the air. Why weren't we warned that the financial industry was awash in bad housing loans? President Bush and Sen. John McCain had no answer. So the folks voted for the Democrats.
But that doesn't mean the American people became liberals overnight. In fact, some folks became even more conservative with their spending and lifestyles. The images of left-wing media people gloating over the failure of the Bush administration did not cheer many people up. In fact, I believe it teed a lot of them off.
Despite the power shift in Washington, America remains a traditional country that largely rejects big government and radical social change. The former hippies running the crazy-left media will never get that. They believe most Americans want gay marriage, political correctness and unfettered abortion. They believe everyday folks think ponytails and pierced ears on old guys are cool.
Well, these Abbie Hoffman wannabes are sadly out of touch. And soon, maybe out of work.
The Minneapolis paper, dubbed the Red Star by some in Minnesota, filed for bankruptcy after its earnings dropped more than 50 percent in one year. That despite the presidential vote and a vicious election between Sen. Norm Coleman and Al Franken.
As for The New York Times: It is Twilight Zone time. The paper was already trying to use equity in its Manhattan office building to pay debts, and now has borrowed $250 million from Mexican billionaire Carlos Slim Helu. And get this: The Times is paying old Carlos an astounding 14 percent interest. What, was Tony Soprano not available? Does the description "loan shark" mean anything to the ideologues running the Times? The prime lending rate in America is 3.25 percent, and these guys are paying Carlos Slim 14 percent. Wow.
On the TV front, the uber-liberal, Bush-hating MSNBC network ranked 31 in total day ratings for the first two weeks of January. I think that's right behind the "Roller Derby Channel." General Electric, which owns NBC, has taken a sharp turn to the left in its corporate philosophy and, at the same time, is watching its stock price decline from about $50 a share to around $13. The fact that GE CEO Jeffrey Immelt still has his job ranks up there with the miracle of the U.S. Airways water landing.
Why are the liberal media taking a pounding when the left now controls Congress and the Oval Office? It may be because of the economy. After the recession blindsided the folks last fall, anger filled the air. Why weren't we warned that the financial industry was awash in bad housing loans? President Bush and Sen. John McCain had no answer. So the folks voted for the Democrats.
But that doesn't mean the American people became liberals overnight. In fact, some folks became even more conservative with their spending and lifestyles. The images of left-wing media people gloating over the failure of the Bush administration did not cheer many people up. In fact, I believe it teed a lot of them off.
Despite the power shift in Washington, America remains a traditional country that largely rejects big government and radical social change. The former hippies running the crazy-left media will never get that. They believe most Americans want gay marriage, political correctness and unfettered abortion. They believe everyday folks think ponytails and pierced ears on old guys are cool.
Well, these Abbie Hoffman wannabes are sadly out of touch. And soon, maybe out of work.
Saturday, January 24, 2009
Al Gorebot is gonna have to find a new gig...
According to the latest PEW survey results, 'global warming has dropped to absolute last priority of concern for American's. If this keeps up, Gorebot is gonna have to find a new scam -- folks ain't gonna be interested in being extorted (ooops, I meant to say 'investing in') with his carbon offset certificates.
Poor feller.... guess it's just an inconvenient fact!!
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Annie once again, aims....... and fires....!
More Boos Than Balls
Ann Coulter
January 21, 2009
It will not be easy for President B. Hussein Obama. More than half the country voted for him, and yet our newspapers are brimming with snippy remarks at every little aspect of his inauguration.
Here's a small sampling of the churlishness in just The New York Times:
-- The American public is bemused by the tasteless show-biz extravaganza surrounding Barack Obama's inauguration today.
-- There is something to be said for some showiness in an inauguration. But one felt discomfited all the same.
-- This is an inauguration, not a coronation.
-- Is there a parallel between Mrs. Obama's jewel-toned outfit and somebody else's glass slippers? Why limousines and not shank's mare?
-- It is still unclear whether we are supposed to shout "Whoopee!" or "Shame!" about the new elegance the Obamas are bringing to Washington.
Boy, talk about raining on somebody's parade! These were not, of course, comments about the inauguration of the angel Obama; they are (slightly edited) comments about the inauguration of another historic president, Ronald Reagan, in January 1981.
Obama's inaugural address tracked much of Reagan's first inaugural address -- minus the substance -- the main difference being that Obama did not invoke God as stoutly or frequently, restricting his heavenly references to a few liberal focus-grouped phrases, such as "God-given" and "God's grace."
Obama was also not as fulsome in his praise of his predecessor as Reagan was. To appreciate how remarkable this is, recall that Reagan's predecessor was Jimmy Carter.
Under Carter, more than 50 Americans were held hostage by a two-bit terrorist Iranian regime for 444 days -- released the day of Reagan's inauguration. Under Bush, there has not been another terrorist attack since Sept. 11, 2001.
But I gather that if Obama had uttered anything more than the briefest allusion to Bush, that would have provoked yet more booing from the Hope-and-Change crowd, which moments earlier had showered Bush with boos when he walked onto the stage. That must be the new tone we've been hearing so much about.
So maybe liberals can stop acting as if the entire nation could at last come together in a "unity of purpose" if only conservatives would stop fomenting "conflict and discord" -- as Obama suggested in his inaugural address. We're not the ones who booed a departing president.
It is a liberal trope to insult conservatives by asking them meaningless questions, such as the one repeatedly asked of Bush throughout his presidency about whether he had made any mistakes. All humans make mistakes -- what is the point of that question other than to give insult?
When will the first reporter ask President Obama to admit that he has made mistakes? Try: Never.
No, that question will disappear for the next four years. It will be replaced by the new question for conservatives on every liberal's lips these days: Do you want Obama to succeed as president?
Answer: Of course we do. We live here, too.
But merely to ask the question is to imply that the 60 million Americans who did not vote for Obama are being unpatriotic if they do not wholeheartedly endorse his liberal agenda.
I guess it depends on the meaning of "succeed." If Obama "succeeds" in pushing through big-government, terrorist-appeasing policies, he will not have "succeeded" at being a good president. If we didn't think conservative principles of small government and strong national defense weren't better for the country, we wouldn't be conservatives.
And why was that question never asked of liberals producing assassination books and movies about President Bush for the last eight years?
Say, did liberals want Pastor Rick Warren to succeed delivering a meaningful invocation at the inaugural?
The way I remember it, the Hope-and-Change crowd viciously denounced the Christian pastor, stamped their feet and demanded that Obama withdraw the invitation -- all because Rick Warren agrees with Obama's stated position on gay marriage, which also happens to be the position of a vast majority of Americans every time they have been allowed to vote on the matter.
Liberals always have to play the victim, acting as if they merely want to bring the nation together in hope and unity in the face of petulant, stick-in-the-mud conservatives. Meanwhile, they are the ones booing, heckling and publicly fantasizing about the assassination of those who disagree with them on policy matters.
Hope and unity, apparently, can only be achieved if conservatives would just go away -- and perhaps have the decency to kill themselves.
Republicans are not the ones who need to be told that "the time has come to set aside childish things" -- as Obama said of his own assumption of the presidency. Remember? We're the ones who managed to gaze upon Carter at the conclusion of his abomination of a presidency without booing.
Ann Coulter
January 21, 2009
It will not be easy for President B. Hussein Obama. More than half the country voted for him, and yet our newspapers are brimming with snippy remarks at every little aspect of his inauguration.
Here's a small sampling of the churlishness in just The New York Times:
-- The American public is bemused by the tasteless show-biz extravaganza surrounding Barack Obama's inauguration today.
-- There is something to be said for some showiness in an inauguration. But one felt discomfited all the same.
-- This is an inauguration, not a coronation.
-- Is there a parallel between Mrs. Obama's jewel-toned outfit and somebody else's glass slippers? Why limousines and not shank's mare?
-- It is still unclear whether we are supposed to shout "Whoopee!" or "Shame!" about the new elegance the Obamas are bringing to Washington.
Boy, talk about raining on somebody's parade! These were not, of course, comments about the inauguration of the angel Obama; they are (slightly edited) comments about the inauguration of another historic president, Ronald Reagan, in January 1981.
Obama's inaugural address tracked much of Reagan's first inaugural address -- minus the substance -- the main difference being that Obama did not invoke God as stoutly or frequently, restricting his heavenly references to a few liberal focus-grouped phrases, such as "God-given" and "God's grace."
Obama was also not as fulsome in his praise of his predecessor as Reagan was. To appreciate how remarkable this is, recall that Reagan's predecessor was Jimmy Carter.
Under Carter, more than 50 Americans were held hostage by a two-bit terrorist Iranian regime for 444 days -- released the day of Reagan's inauguration. Under Bush, there has not been another terrorist attack since Sept. 11, 2001.
But I gather that if Obama had uttered anything more than the briefest allusion to Bush, that would have provoked yet more booing from the Hope-and-Change crowd, which moments earlier had showered Bush with boos when he walked onto the stage. That must be the new tone we've been hearing so much about.
So maybe liberals can stop acting as if the entire nation could at last come together in a "unity of purpose" if only conservatives would stop fomenting "conflict and discord" -- as Obama suggested in his inaugural address. We're not the ones who booed a departing president.
It is a liberal trope to insult conservatives by asking them meaningless questions, such as the one repeatedly asked of Bush throughout his presidency about whether he had made any mistakes. All humans make mistakes -- what is the point of that question other than to give insult?
When will the first reporter ask President Obama to admit that he has made mistakes? Try: Never.
No, that question will disappear for the next four years. It will be replaced by the new question for conservatives on every liberal's lips these days: Do you want Obama to succeed as president?
Answer: Of course we do. We live here, too.
But merely to ask the question is to imply that the 60 million Americans who did not vote for Obama are being unpatriotic if they do not wholeheartedly endorse his liberal agenda.
I guess it depends on the meaning of "succeed." If Obama "succeeds" in pushing through big-government, terrorist-appeasing policies, he will not have "succeeded" at being a good president. If we didn't think conservative principles of small government and strong national defense weren't better for the country, we wouldn't be conservatives.
And why was that question never asked of liberals producing assassination books and movies about President Bush for the last eight years?
Say, did liberals want Pastor Rick Warren to succeed delivering a meaningful invocation at the inaugural?
The way I remember it, the Hope-and-Change crowd viciously denounced the Christian pastor, stamped their feet and demanded that Obama withdraw the invitation -- all because Rick Warren agrees with Obama's stated position on gay marriage, which also happens to be the position of a vast majority of Americans every time they have been allowed to vote on the matter.
Liberals always have to play the victim, acting as if they merely want to bring the nation together in hope and unity in the face of petulant, stick-in-the-mud conservatives. Meanwhile, they are the ones booing, heckling and publicly fantasizing about the assassination of those who disagree with them on policy matters.
Hope and unity, apparently, can only be achieved if conservatives would just go away -- and perhaps have the decency to kill themselves.
Republicans are not the ones who need to be told that "the time has come to set aside childish things" -- as Obama said of his own assumption of the presidency. Remember? We're the ones who managed to gaze upon Carter at the conclusion of his abomination of a presidency without booing.
Not two full days in office - and already it starts.....
White House may put hold on offshore drilling plan
Thu Jan 22, 2009
(Reuters)
- U.S. President Barack Obama may order a hold on a proposal issued in the final days of the Bush administration to expand offshore drilling in previously banned areas, an Interior Department official told Reuters on Wednesday.
Shortly after being sworn in on Tuesday, Obama ordered all federal agencies and departments to halt pending regulations until they can be reviewed by incoming staff.
An Interior official said the department is waiting for clarification from the White House on whether a proposed draft of a five-year plan to lease areas in the Atlantic and Pacific waters for oil and natural gas drilling can go forward.
The preliminary plan would authorize 31 energy exploration lease sales between 2010 and 2015 for tracts along the east coast and off the coasts of Alaska and California.
Both presidential and congressional bans on drilling in most U.S. waters ended last year.
Separately, the Interior official said the department's plan to develop oil shale fields in the western United States may also be stopped by Obama's order.
(Reporting by Ayesha Rascoe and Tom Doggett)
So, this 'messiah' who promised us hope and change - and to lead us to the promised land, is starting off his first week by guaranteeing that our dependence on OPEC oil remains constant. The states involved and their citizens are all for both the oil exploration offshore and in the shale fields......... but the rich, elitist lefties -- want to keep the country down and dependent!
Thu Jan 22, 2009
(Reuters)
- U.S. President Barack Obama may order a hold on a proposal issued in the final days of the Bush administration to expand offshore drilling in previously banned areas, an Interior Department official told Reuters on Wednesday.
Shortly after being sworn in on Tuesday, Obama ordered all federal agencies and departments to halt pending regulations until they can be reviewed by incoming staff.
An Interior official said the department is waiting for clarification from the White House on whether a proposed draft of a five-year plan to lease areas in the Atlantic and Pacific waters for oil and natural gas drilling can go forward.
The preliminary plan would authorize 31 energy exploration lease sales between 2010 and 2015 for tracts along the east coast and off the coasts of Alaska and California.
Both presidential and congressional bans on drilling in most U.S. waters ended last year.
Separately, the Interior official said the department's plan to develop oil shale fields in the western United States may also be stopped by Obama's order.
(Reporting by Ayesha Rascoe and Tom Doggett)
So, this 'messiah' who promised us hope and change - and to lead us to the promised land, is starting off his first week by guaranteeing that our dependence on OPEC oil remains constant. The states involved and their citizens are all for both the oil exploration offshore and in the shale fields......... but the rich, elitist lefties -- want to keep the country down and dependent!
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Meet your (Obamanation's) new Regulatory Czar...
Harvard law professor Cass Sunstein will head the White House Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs in the Obama administration. Just in case you wonder why you should care -- here is a bit of his writings and opinions.....
“[A]nimals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives, to prevent violations of current law … Any animals that are entitled to bring suit would be represented by (human) counsel, who would owe guardian like obligations and make decisions, subject
to those obligations, on their clients’ behalf.”
It doesn't end there. Sunstein delivered a keynote speech at Harvard University’s 2007 “Facing Animals” conference. Keep in mind that as OIRA Administrator, Sunstein will have the political authority to implement a massive federal government overhaul. Consider this tidbit:
“We ought to ban hunting, I suggest, if there isn’t a purpose other than sport and fun. That should be against the law. It’s time now.”
Sunstein also argued in favor of “eliminating current practices such as greyhound racing, cosmetic testing, and meat eating, most controversially.”
How is that for putting a wild eyed liberal professor and PETA Panting fox in charge of the Hen House???
“[A]nimals should be permitted to bring suit, with human beings as their representatives, to prevent violations of current law … Any animals that are entitled to bring suit would be represented by (human) counsel, who would owe guardian like obligations and make decisions, subject
to those obligations, on their clients’ behalf.”It doesn't end there. Sunstein delivered a keynote speech at Harvard University’s 2007 “Facing Animals” conference. Keep in mind that as OIRA Administrator, Sunstein will have the political authority to implement a massive federal government overhaul. Consider this tidbit:
“We ought to ban hunting, I suggest, if there isn’t a purpose other than sport and fun. That should be against the law. It’s time now.”
Sunstein also argued in favor of “eliminating current practices such as greyhound racing, cosmetic testing, and meat eating, most controversially.”
How is that for putting a wild eyed liberal professor and PETA Panting fox in charge of the Hen House???
Michelle Malkin shakes us back to reality!
And Now, Back To Our Regularly Scheduled Spending Orgy
Michelle Malkin
January 21, 2009
"The time has come," President Barack Obama told us in his inaugural address, "to set aside childish things." He borrowed the line from Corinthians. With the Beltway bread-and-circus show over, President Obama will now get to work on borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from you, your children and your grandchildren for a doomed fiscal stimulus.
As President Obama basked in the inaugural glow, a dark cloud of reality moved in over the Democrats' $825 billion plan to rescue the economy. The Congressional Budget Office crunched the numbers and concluded that a huge bulk of the federal spending orgy wouldn't actually kick in until the recession is waning -- if not already over.
The CBO analysis showed that "less than half of the $30 billion in highway construction funds detailed by House Democrats would be released into the economy over the next four years" and "less than $4 billion in highway construction money would reach the economy by September 2010," according to the Associated Press. And those are generous time estimates given the reality of molasses-slow bidding and contracting processes -- bogged down by the usual weight of political wrangling, racial bean-counting and assorted union grievance-mongering.
Just $26 billion out of the $274 billion set aside in the package would reach the economy by the end of the year, the CBO found. That's a mere 7 percent. Moreover, the AP summed up: "Just one in seven dollars of a huge $18.5 billion investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy programs would be spent within a year and a half."
Like I said two weeks ago ("The Generational Theft Act of 2009, Jan. 7, 2009): It's the timing, stupid.
The other incontrovertible truth about this massive wealth transfer is that Washington cannot stop the inevitable lard-up. The original concept of spending on "roads and bridges" has morphed into spending on anything and everything that moves or can be moved. Every moocher in the marketplace wants his grubby paws on the money. And if his or her provision isn't already written into the Democrats' legislation, it will get slipped in under the cover of night.
To wit: Public radio and public television -- already funded with your money to the tune of some $400 million in direct federal handouts and tax deductions for contributions made by individual viewers, not to mention untold state grants and subsidies -- are demanding a hugetastic chunk of the stimulus pie. That's right: Government-supported NPR and PBS want even more of a bailout than they've lived off of for the last 40 years. According to Current.org, which covers public TV and radio, the two entities along with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting have petitioned Obama for $550 million in funding to help create more workers suckling on the public teat.
Watching TV is apparently critical to rescuing the American economy. Already stuffed into the Democrats' package is a $650 million bailout -- call it the Boob Tube boondoggle -- to pay for $650 million worth of digital TV upgrade coupons in the wake of the official, government-mandated transition to digital television next month. Not to be left out, the National Endowment for the Arts is on the Santa stimulus list for an additional $50 million cash injection. Oh, and there's another $50 million earmarked "to make up for a lack of philanthropic support for the arts." A breakdown of the spending by House Minority Leader John Boehner's office found an additional $6 billion in buried stimulus treasure for colleges and $166 billion in direct aid to states looking for taxpayers to save them from their profligate spending.
A few conservative Democrats have started murmuring about this looming fiscal nightmare. North Carolina Rep. Heath Shuler expressed concern about the porkification of the bill: "This can't be a Christmas tree." Sen. Kent Conrad told Bloomberg News that "his committee projects the plan will reduce the unemployment rate by 'maybe' 1 percent, or about half of the 3 million jobs Obama has said the plan would generate."
Wake up, taxpayers: This nearly $1 trillion plan is nothing but future-mortgaging ornaments and tinsel boxed in self-delusion. It is time, as President Obama lectured us, to put away childish things -- starting with this epic fail.
January 21, 2009
"The time has come," President Barack Obama told us in his inaugural address, "to set aside childish things." He borrowed the line from Corinthians. With the Beltway bread-and-circus show over, President Obama will now get to work on borrowing hundreds of billions of dollars from you, your children and your grandchildren for a doomed fiscal stimulus.
As President Obama basked in the inaugural glow, a dark cloud of reality moved in over the Democrats' $825 billion plan to rescue the economy. The Congressional Budget Office crunched the numbers and concluded that a huge bulk of the federal spending orgy wouldn't actually kick in until the recession is waning -- if not already over.
The CBO analysis showed that "less than half of the $30 billion in highway construction funds detailed by House Democrats would be released into the economy over the next four years" and "less than $4 billion in highway construction money would reach the economy by September 2010," according to the Associated Press. And those are generous time estimates given the reality of molasses-slow bidding and contracting processes -- bogged down by the usual weight of political wrangling, racial bean-counting and assorted union grievance-mongering.
Just $26 billion out of the $274 billion set aside in the package would reach the economy by the end of the year, the CBO found. That's a mere 7 percent. Moreover, the AP summed up: "Just one in seven dollars of a huge $18.5 billion investment in energy efficiency and renewable energy programs would be spent within a year and a half."
Like I said two weeks ago ("The Generational Theft Act of 2009, Jan. 7, 2009): It's the timing, stupid.
The other incontrovertible truth about this massive wealth transfer is that Washington cannot stop the inevitable lard-up. The original concept of spending on "roads and bridges" has morphed into spending on anything and everything that moves or can be moved. Every moocher in the marketplace wants his grubby paws on the money. And if his or her provision isn't already written into the Democrats' legislation, it will get slipped in under the cover of night.
To wit: Public radio and public television -- already funded with your money to the tune of some $400 million in direct federal handouts and tax deductions for contributions made by individual viewers, not to mention untold state grants and subsidies -- are demanding a hugetastic chunk of the stimulus pie. That's right: Government-supported NPR and PBS want even more of a bailout than they've lived off of for the last 40 years. According to Current.org, which covers public TV and radio, the two entities along with the Corporation for Public Broadcasting have petitioned Obama for $550 million in funding to help create more workers suckling on the public teat.
Watching TV is apparently critical to rescuing the American economy. Already stuffed into the Democrats' package is a $650 million bailout -- call it the Boob Tube boondoggle -- to pay for $650 million worth of digital TV upgrade coupons in the wake of the official, government-mandated transition to digital television next month. Not to be left out, the National Endowment for the Arts is on the Santa stimulus list for an additional $50 million cash injection. Oh, and there's another $50 million earmarked "to make up for a lack of philanthropic support for the arts." A breakdown of the spending by House Minority Leader John Boehner's office found an additional $6 billion in buried stimulus treasure for colleges and $166 billion in direct aid to states looking for taxpayers to save them from their profligate spending.
A few conservative Democrats have started murmuring about this looming fiscal nightmare. North Carolina Rep. Heath Shuler expressed concern about the porkification of the bill: "This can't be a Christmas tree." Sen. Kent Conrad told Bloomberg News that "his committee projects the plan will reduce the unemployment rate by 'maybe' 1 percent, or about half of the 3 million jobs Obama has said the plan would generate."
Wake up, taxpayers: This nearly $1 trillion plan is nothing but future-mortgaging ornaments and tinsel boxed in self-delusion. It is time, as President Obama lectured us, to put away childish things -- starting with this epic fail.
Stay tuned Pilgrims, it might get a whole lot darker before we can afford to turn the lights on again.........
A touch of Class with a capital C !!
Bush Family to Leave Many Treasured Items Inside White House
The Bushes will remove very few treasured items when they depart the White House on Tuesday.
FOXNews.com
Monday, January 19, 2009
Unlike Bill and Hillary Clinton, George and Laura Bush will take few treasured mementos with them from their years at the White House.
When the Clintons left the White House in January 2001, the former first couple took with them more than 50 gifts -- including a chandelier, flatware, and paintings -- valued at nearly $200,000.
The Bushes, however, borrowed from furnishings that already existed within the White House collection, said Sally McDonough, press secretary to Laura Bush.
"Mrs. Bush -- having the experience of being at the White House when her father-in-law was president -- knew how many beautiful things she had to choose from to furnish the residence. And she will go back to Texas with only those items that belong to her," McDonough told FOXNews.com.
Bush's official state china service -- a Lenox gilt-edged style with a green basket weave border valued at $492,798 -- is a valued item that will remain at the White House.
The 320 14-piece place settings were purchased with privately raised funds through the White House Historical Association Acquisition Trust.
Two custom rugs, including one in the Diplomatic Reception Room with emblems from all 50 state flags, will also stay behind in the Executive Mansion.
But the first family can opt to place a multitude of personal gifts they have received in the presidential museum.
"They can request any of those items to be part of the library," McDonough said. "But the library won't open for years, so a lot of those decisions haven't been made yet."
But a few cherished items will be taken back to the Bush home in Crawford, Texas.
One of the few furnishings Laura Bush brought to the White House eight years ago was a chest of drawers that had belonged to her husband's grandmother.
"She will bring that back to Texas with her," McDonough said. "It's very sentimental to them."
The Bushes will also take home stacks of books they have acquired over the last eight years.
Sure is easy to spot the difference between Arkansas white trash and Texas solid citizens, ain't it Pilgrims!
The Bushes will remove very few treasured items when they depart the White House on Tuesday.
FOXNews.com
Monday, January 19, 2009
Unlike Bill and Hillary Clinton, George and Laura Bush will take few treasured mementos with them from their years at the White House.
When the Clintons left the White House in January 2001, the former first couple took with them more than 50 gifts -- including a chandelier, flatware, and paintings -- valued at nearly $200,000.
The Bushes, however, borrowed from furnishings that already existed within the White House collection, said Sally McDonough, press secretary to Laura Bush.
"Mrs. Bush -- having the experience of being at the White House when her father-in-law was president -- knew how many beautiful things she had to choose from to furnish the residence. And she will go back to Texas with only those items that belong to her," McDonough told FOXNews.com.
Bush's official state china service -- a Lenox gilt-edged style with a green basket weave border valued at $492,798 -- is a valued item that will remain at the White House.
The 320 14-piece place settings were purchased with privately raised funds through the White House Historical Association Acquisition Trust.
Two custom rugs, including one in the Diplomatic Reception Room with emblems from all 50 state flags, will also stay behind in the Executive Mansion.
But the first family can opt to place a multitude of personal gifts they have received in the presidential museum.
"They can request any of those items to be part of the library," McDonough said. "But the library won't open for years, so a lot of those decisions haven't been made yet."
But a few cherished items will be taken back to the Bush home in Crawford, Texas.
One of the few furnishings Laura Bush brought to the White House eight years ago was a chest of drawers that had belonged to her husband's grandmother.
"She will bring that back to Texas with her," McDonough said. "It's very sentimental to them."
The Bushes will also take home stacks of books they have acquired over the last eight years.
Sure is easy to spot the difference between Arkansas white trash and Texas solid citizens, ain't it Pilgrims!
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Riddle me this.....
Republicans Must Turn Down the Kool-Aid
David Limbaugh
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
Today we watched our new president take the oath of office, promising only to defend the Constitution of the United States of America. He has already publicly stated that he believes it is a flawed document because it lays out what the federal government cannot do, and not what it should do. He will be our President for at least four years. Everybody is 'wishing him well', and 'success' and a 'great term'.
Although I will hope that he has a healthy four years and that nothing untoward shall come to him --- I cannot, in my heart of hearts, wish him well or great success. For to do so would be the same as saying I hope that in four years:
- The federal government is running a national health program
- The federal government has grown by 600,000 employees
- The federal government will have overridden the Second Amendment
- The federal government will have ignored the Tenth Amendment
- The federal government has used the IRS to redistribute wealth
- The federal government will decide what kind of car I may drive, and when I may drive it
- The federal government will have nationalized many former privately owned companies
- The federal government will be further along the road to full Socialism than at present
As a neo-federalist, I believe in the least federal government possible, with control of our day to day lives in the hands of local and state government who are directly answerable to us.
Thus, I am faced with a Hobson's Choice. I am either 'for him' or not. Fortunately I don't have to be against him. So to answer my own riddle - "I am just not for him".
David Limbaugh
Tuesday, January 20, 2009
It's going to take real courage the next four years for Republicans to swim against the tide and oppose Barack Obama -- in whom so many have placed their hopes, almost to the point of idolatry. But if Obama governs in a way that's consistent with his promises, the country's future security and prosperity will depend on spirited opposition.
It's bad enough for the liberal media to deify Obama, but it's almost unbearable for right-wing commentators and politicians to jump on this bandwagon, as well, as if Obama's personal attributes have blinded them to the policy dangers he represents.
During the Bush years, the left blamed Bush for the absence of bipartisanship, when, by any rational measure, they were the ones whose relentless vitriol made bipartisanship impossible.
Forgive the analogy, but their reversal of blame is reminiscent of a memorable scene in the movie "Animal House," when fraternity hotshot "Otter" pressured the hapless legacy pledge, "Flounder," into lending him his brother's car. When Otter returned the car after having demolished it, Otter chastised Flounder for entrusting the car to him. "You (screwed) up. You trusted me."
Now, after eight years of this poison, the same specious theme from the Bush bashers has found a new application: "Republicans must work with Barack Obama and restore a spirit of collegiality to Washington," as if they have any moral authority to be lecturing, but even more importantly, as if a spirit of collegiality will solve America's problems.
To be clear, I am not advocating that Republicans return the same mean-spirited partisanship with which the left pummeled Bush. But conservatives must not abandon their principles in pursuit of the seductive, illusory goal of bipartisanship.
You'd think this principle too sophomoric to articulate, and so do I -- almost. But have you been listening to Republican politicians and "conservative" commentators lately behaving as if their eternal salvation depends on jumping aboard a train headed in the opposite direction from everything in which they profess to believe?
These words expressed today by David Limbaugh cause my title for this posting:Today we watched our new president take the oath of office, promising only to defend the Constitution of the United States of America. He has already publicly stated that he believes it is a flawed document because it lays out what the federal government cannot do, and not what it should do. He will be our President for at least four years. Everybody is 'wishing him well', and 'success' and a 'great term'.
Although I will hope that he has a healthy four years and that nothing untoward shall come to him --- I cannot, in my heart of hearts, wish him well or great success. For to do so would be the same as saying I hope that in four years:
- The federal government is running a national health program
- The federal government has grown by 600,000 employees
- The federal government will have overridden the Second Amendment
- The federal government will have ignored the Tenth Amendment
- The federal government has used the IRS to redistribute wealth
- The federal government will decide what kind of car I may drive, and when I may drive it
- The federal government will have nationalized many former privately owned companies
- The federal government will be further along the road to full Socialism than at present
As a neo-federalist, I believe in the least federal government possible, with control of our day to day lives in the hands of local and state government who are directly answerable to us.
Thus, I am faced with a Hobson's Choice. I am either 'for him' or not. Fortunately I don't have to be against him. So to answer my own riddle - "I am just not for him".
Monday, January 19, 2009
One more reason the New York Times and their ilk are fading into the dustbin of history!
MURDER SPREE BY PEOPLE WHO REFUSE TO ASK FOR DIRECTIONS
by Ann Coulter
January 14, 2009
In a front-page article on Jan. 2 of this year, The New York Times took a brief respite from its ongoing canonization of Barack Obama and returned to its series on violent crimes committed by returning GIs, or as I call it: "U.S. Military, Psycho Killers."
The Treason Times' banner series about Iraq and Afghanistan veterans
accused of murder began in January last year but was quickly discontinued as readers noticed that the Times doggedly refused to provide any statistics comparing veteran murders with murders in any other group.
So they waited a year, hoping readers wouldn't notice they were still including no relevant comparisons.
What, for example, is the percentage of murderers among veterans compared to the percentage of murderers in the population at large -- or, more germane, in the general population of young males, inasmuch as violent crime is committed almost exclusively by young men?
Any group composed primarily of young men will contain a seemingly mammoth number of murderers.
Consider the harmless fantasy game, Dungeons and Dragons -- which happens to be played almost exclusively by young males. When murders were committed in the '80s by (1) young men, who were (2) Dungeons and Dragons enthusiasts, some people concluded that factor (2), rather than factor (1), led to murderous tendencies.
Similarly, for its series about how America's bravest and finest young men are really a gang of psychopathic cutthroats, the Times triumphantly produced 121 homicides committed by veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in order to pin the blame for the murders on the U.S. military.
Perhaps the Times' next major expose could be on how a huge percentage of murderers are people who won't ask for directions or share the TV remote.
Let's compare murders by veterans to murders by other 18- to 35-year-olds in the U.S. population at large. From 1976 to 2005, 18- to 24-year-olds -- both male and more gentle females -- committed homicide at a rate of 29.9 per 100,000. Twenty-five- to 35-year-olds committed homicides at a rate of 15.8 per 100,000.
Since 9/11, about 1.6 million troops have served in either Iraq or Afghanistan. That makes the homicide rate among veterans of these wars 7.6 per 100,000 -- or about one-third the homicide rate for their age group (18 to 35) in the general population of both sexes.
But fewer than 200,000 of the 1.6 million troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan have been women, and the murder rate for the general population includes both males and females. Inasmuch as males commit nearly 90 percent of all murders, the rate for males in those age groups is probably nearly double the male/female combined rates, which translates to about 30 to 55 murderers per 100,000 males aged 18 to 35.
So comparing the veterans' rate of murder to only their male counterparts in the general population, we see that Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are about 10 times less likely to commit a murder than non-veterans of those wars.
But as long as the Times has such a burning interest in the root causes of murder, how about considering the one factor more likely to create a murderer than any other? That is the topic we're not allowed to discuss: single motherhood.
As I describe in my new book, "Guilty: Liberal 'Victims' and Their Assault on America," controlling for socioeconomic status, race and place of residence, the strongest predictor of whether a person will end up in prison is that he was raised by a single parent. (The second strongest factor is owning a Dennis Kucinich bumper sticker.)
By 1996, 70 percent of inmates in state juvenile detention centers serving long-term sentences were raised by single mothers. Seventy percent of teenage births, dropouts, suicides, runaways, juvenile delinquents and child murderers involve children raised by single mothers. Girls raised without fathers are more sexually promiscuous and more likely to end up divorced.
A 1990 study by the left-wing Progressive Policy Institute showed that, after controlling for single motherhood, the difference in black and white crime disappeared.
Various studies come up with slightly different numbers, but all the figures are grim. A study cited in the far left-wing Village Voice found that children brought up in single-mother homes "are five times more likely to commit suicide, nine times more likely to drop out of high school, 10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances, 14 times more likely to commit rape (for the boys), 20 times more likely to end up in prison, and 32 times more likely to run away from home."
With new children being born, running away, dropping out of high school and committing murder every year, it's not a static problem to analyze. But however the numbers are run, single motherhood is a societal nuclear bomb.
Many of these studies, for example, are from the '90s, when the percentage of teenagers raised by single parents was lower than it is today. In 1990, 28 percent of children under 18 were being raised in one-parent homes -- mother or father, divorced or never-married. By 2005, more than one-third of all babies born in the U.S. were illegitimate.
That's a lot of social problems in the pipeline.
Think I'm being cruel? Imagine an America with 60 to 70 percent fewer juvenile delinquents, teenage births, teenage suicides and runaways, and you will appreciate what the sainted "single mothers" have accomplished.
Even in liberals' fevered nightmares, predatory mortgage dealers, oil speculators and Ken Lay could never do as much harm to their fellow human beings as single mothers do to their own children, to say nothing of society at large.
But the Times won't run that series because liberals adore single motherhood and the dissolution of traditional marriage in America. They detest the military, so they cite a few anecdotal examples of veterans who have committed murder and hope that no one asks for details.
by Ann Coulter
January 14, 2009
In a front-page article on Jan. 2 of this year, The New York Times took a brief respite from its ongoing canonization of Barack Obama and returned to its series on violent crimes committed by returning GIs, or as I call it: "U.S. Military, Psycho Killers."
The Treason Times' banner series about Iraq and Afghanistan veterans
accused of murder began in January last year but was quickly discontinued as readers noticed that the Times doggedly refused to provide any statistics comparing veteran murders with murders in any other group.So they waited a year, hoping readers wouldn't notice they were still including no relevant comparisons.
What, for example, is the percentage of murderers among veterans compared to the percentage of murderers in the population at large -- or, more germane, in the general population of young males, inasmuch as violent crime is committed almost exclusively by young men?
Any group composed primarily of young men will contain a seemingly mammoth number of murderers.
Consider the harmless fantasy game, Dungeons and Dragons -- which happens to be played almost exclusively by young males. When murders were committed in the '80s by (1) young men, who were (2) Dungeons and Dragons enthusiasts, some people concluded that factor (2), rather than factor (1), led to murderous tendencies.
Similarly, for its series about how America's bravest and finest young men are really a gang of psychopathic cutthroats, the Times triumphantly produced 121 homicides committed by veterans of the Iraq and Afghanistan wars in order to pin the blame for the murders on the U.S. military.
Perhaps the Times' next major expose could be on how a huge percentage of murderers are people who won't ask for directions or share the TV remote.
Let's compare murders by veterans to murders by other 18- to 35-year-olds in the U.S. population at large. From 1976 to 2005, 18- to 24-year-olds -- both male and more gentle females -- committed homicide at a rate of 29.9 per 100,000. Twenty-five- to 35-year-olds committed homicides at a rate of 15.8 per 100,000.
Since 9/11, about 1.6 million troops have served in either Iraq or Afghanistan. That makes the homicide rate among veterans of these wars 7.6 per 100,000 -- or about one-third the homicide rate for their age group (18 to 35) in the general population of both sexes.
But fewer than 200,000 of the 1.6 million troops who served in Iraq and Afghanistan have been women, and the murder rate for the general population includes both males and females. Inasmuch as males commit nearly 90 percent of all murders, the rate for males in those age groups is probably nearly double the male/female combined rates, which translates to about 30 to 55 murderers per 100,000 males aged 18 to 35.
So comparing the veterans' rate of murder to only their male counterparts in the general population, we see that Iraq and Afghanistan veterans are about 10 times less likely to commit a murder than non-veterans of those wars.
But as long as the Times has such a burning interest in the root causes of murder, how about considering the one factor more likely to create a murderer than any other? That is the topic we're not allowed to discuss: single motherhood.
As I describe in my new book, "Guilty: Liberal 'Victims' and Their Assault on America," controlling for socioeconomic status, race and place of residence, the strongest predictor of whether a person will end up in prison is that he was raised by a single parent. (The second strongest factor is owning a Dennis Kucinich bumper sticker.)
By 1996, 70 percent of inmates in state juvenile detention centers serving long-term sentences were raised by single mothers. Seventy percent of teenage births, dropouts, suicides, runaways, juvenile delinquents and child murderers involve children raised by single mothers. Girls raised without fathers are more sexually promiscuous and more likely to end up divorced.
A 1990 study by the left-wing Progressive Policy Institute showed that, after controlling for single motherhood, the difference in black and white crime disappeared.
Various studies come up with slightly different numbers, but all the figures are grim. A study cited in the far left-wing Village Voice found that children brought up in single-mother homes "are five times more likely to commit suicide, nine times more likely to drop out of high school, 10 times more likely to abuse chemical substances, 14 times more likely to commit rape (for the boys), 20 times more likely to end up in prison, and 32 times more likely to run away from home."
With new children being born, running away, dropping out of high school and committing murder every year, it's not a static problem to analyze. But however the numbers are run, single motherhood is a societal nuclear bomb.
Many of these studies, for example, are from the '90s, when the percentage of teenagers raised by single parents was lower than it is today. In 1990, 28 percent of children under 18 were being raised in one-parent homes -- mother or father, divorced or never-married. By 2005, more than one-third of all babies born in the U.S. were illegitimate.
That's a lot of social problems in the pipeline.
Think I'm being cruel? Imagine an America with 60 to 70 percent fewer juvenile delinquents, teenage births, teenage suicides and runaways, and you will appreciate what the sainted "single mothers" have accomplished.
Even in liberals' fevered nightmares, predatory mortgage dealers, oil speculators and Ken Lay could never do as much harm to their fellow human beings as single mothers do to their own children, to say nothing of society at large.
But the Times won't run that series because liberals adore single motherhood and the dissolution of traditional marriage in America. They detest the military, so they cite a few anecdotal examples of veterans who have committed murder and hope that no one asks for details.
Obamanation a little too 'Lincolny' ???
Obama has little in common with LincolnStar Parker
Monday, January 19, 2009
It's ironic that Barack Obama chooses to infuse these opening days of his presidency with the imagery of Abraham Lincoln.
I don't think there could be two more different men. Understanding why may help us think about what to expect in the days ahead.
Beyond his trademark "change we can believe in," Obama's defining theme has been unity and inclusiveness. "... There's not a liberal America and a conservative America -- there's the United States of America ... We worship an awesome God in the Blue States ... and have gay friends in the Red States."
Obama, of course, does not suggest that we don't have differences. His point is that those differences are not critically important and they're getting in our way. Let's put differences aside, get practical, and solve our problems.
The inaugural ceremonies have pastors for everyone. A white evangelical that opposes same sex marriage, a white homosexual, a left wing black male and a left wing black female.
His economic stimulus plan has large government expenditures to please Democrats and tax benefits to please Republicans.
Lincoln, too, sought unity. But Lincoln's notion of where national unity would lie was far different from Obama's.
He prophetically stated the challenge after accepting the Republican nomination for the presidency in 1858.
"A house divided against itself cannot stand. I believe this government cannot endure half slave and half free. I do not expect the union to be dissolved. I do not expect the House to fall. But I do expect it will cease to be divided. It will become all one thing, or all the other."
As historian Harry Jaffa points out, " For Lincoln, as for Jefferson and for all genuine supporters of the principles of the Declaration of Independence, the distinction between right and wrong is antecedent to any form of government and is independent of any man's or any majority's will."
Lincoln knew that some principles are so fundamental they cannot be compromised. He knew that we couldn't ignore our key differences. Unity could only come from facing them and making the hard choices.
He knew that even though there were competing religious claims on the issue of slavery -- some found biblical sanction in it -- we would still have to choose and decide who we are.
As Americans killed each other, he observed: "Both read the same Bible and pray to the same God ... The prayers of both could not be answered ..."
We have many Americans today who read the same Bible but see the truths that define this country very differently. And, of course, we have Americans who do not see the Bible as relevant to those truths at all and those who would claim that there are no truths.
As Lincoln observed, the prayers of all cannot be answered. Unless we're resigned to meaninglessness, we must believe that our future will reflect today's choices.
On the hardest moral dilemma of his day, Abraham Lincoln stepped up to the plate and took a stand. He did not say that it was above his pay grade. And this is what makes Abraham Lincoln very different from Barack Obama.
Each time has its challenges. Americans feel betrayed by what they see as unethical behavior in American business and in Washington. Yet few seem to appreciate that moral problems lie at the root of our faltering economy.
Sanctity of life and sanctity of property are cut from the same cloth of eternal law.
In the view of many, including me, it's this law that defines our free country.
Our new president, who sanctions both abortion and massive government intrusion into our economic lives, sees things very differently.
So let's not pretend these fundamental differences don't matter. How we choose will define our future. As Lincoln said, the nation "will become all one thing, or all the other."
Saturday, January 17, 2009
Obamanation apparently ain't the only man on the planet that can walk on water...
News Flash!!Dateline, Zaragoza, Spain
Yesterday in Zaragoza, Luis Hernandez-Gomez participated in what has been described as being a 'miracle' when he unexpectedly demonstrated his ability to walk on water.
Happily, there was a photographer present to record the event.
Nothin' Mickey Mouse about Disney's CEO!
Poor feller is just trying to struggle along and eke out a living.....
Disney CEO received $51.1M in compensation in 2008
Jan 16
By RYAN NAKASHIMA
AP Business Writer
LOS ANGELES (AP) - The Walt Disney Co.'s chief executive, Robert Iger, received a compensation package worth $51.1 million in fiscal 2008, up 85 percent from a year
earlier, but most of it came in stock options that are currently worthless, according to a regulatory filing made Friday.
Iger received the option to buy 3 million shares at $29.51 each on Jan. 31 last year when he agreed to a new five-year contract through 2013, the Burbank, Calif.-based company said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Those and other options, which were estimated to be worth $34.4 million when they were granted, are currently worth nothing because the shares closed Friday at $21.46.
According to the filing, Iger also declined a $2.4 million bonus related to total shareholder return. Disney shares have dipped 34 percent since the fiscal year ended Sept. 27.
"He thought it was the appropriate thing to do," said Disney spokesman Jonathan Friedland.
Over the fiscal year, the share price slipped 2.3 percent, to $32.75 from $33.52. Disney's annual revenue grew 7 percent to $37.8 billion while net profit fell 5.5 percent to $4.43 billion.
Iger received a salary of $2 million, non-equity incentive plan compensation of $13.9 million, and other compensation of $773,090, the filing said. The executive's other compensation included $107,897 for air travel, $645,368 for security and another $14,400 in reimbursements for such expenses as health club membership and annual physical exams.
Disney CEO received $51.1M in compensation in 2008
Jan 16
By RYAN NAKASHIMA
AP Business Writer
LOS ANGELES (AP) - The Walt Disney Co.'s chief executive, Robert Iger, received a compensation package worth $51.1 million in fiscal 2008, up 85 percent from a year
earlier, but most of it came in stock options that are currently worthless, according to a regulatory filing made Friday.Iger received the option to buy 3 million shares at $29.51 each on Jan. 31 last year when he agreed to a new five-year contract through 2013, the Burbank, Calif.-based company said in a filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission.
Those and other options, which were estimated to be worth $34.4 million when they were granted, are currently worth nothing because the shares closed Friday at $21.46.
According to the filing, Iger also declined a $2.4 million bonus related to total shareholder return. Disney shares have dipped 34 percent since the fiscal year ended Sept. 27.
"He thought it was the appropriate thing to do," said Disney spokesman Jonathan Friedland.
Over the fiscal year, the share price slipped 2.3 percent, to $32.75 from $33.52. Disney's annual revenue grew 7 percent to $37.8 billion while net profit fell 5.5 percent to $4.43 billion.
Iger received a salary of $2 million, non-equity incentive plan compensation of $13.9 million, and other compensation of $773,090, the filing said. The executive's other compensation included $107,897 for air travel, $645,368 for security and another $14,400 in reimbursements for such expenses as health club membership and annual physical exams.
Friday, January 16, 2009
Yo 'O' Man!!!
The uncaring national weather service is predicting 34 degrees and cloudy and a chance of snow at Tuesday's inauguration ceremony on Tuesday. Shows how little they know..
The Messiah would never let that happen Pilgrims -- he will blow back the clouds, let the sun shine in and create a temperature of 75 degrees in the District of Columbia!
You read it here first!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)