This blog is no longer active as of October 31, 2011
In a so-called Religion of Peace, I would not expect to see this: (Thanks Debbie)
or This: (thanks to “Silent Majority No More!“)
I say reluctantly, because quite frankly, I find all this quite stupid, if you want to know the truth about it. AllahPundit has the videos, if you care to watch it.
Originally, I had planned on coming on here and really laying it to the Democrats; But I just stopped and thought, “Why Bother?” I mean, this is what the American people wanted, when they elected Barack Obama and the Democrat Congress in 2006. So, why should I sit here and write a disparaging blog posting about it? I mean, Indentity Politics is what the Democrats do. They’ve done it for years, not like it is going to change anytime soon.
Anyhow, according to what I’ve seen, even they did go to court, they would win the right for Burris to keep his seat.
Adding to the Stupidity, Blago’s General Council is gone. I assume to help the feds.
So, stay tuned, it could get quite interesting here over the next few weeks. I’m sure ol’ Barry is just farking thrilled shitless over this one. I know I would be. Because really, Obama can basically do zero about it. Blago knows this too. He might be a crazy man on the take, but he ain’t stupid, that’s for sure. I mean, he had enough sense to do the black man political cover thing and knows what he do legally, he ain’t dumb. Ain’t no legally insane guy that damned brilliant. If that’s the case, Charles Manson belongs at farkin’ Harvard. đ
Anyhow, there it is, my opinion on that. If you ain’t noticed; I have not been feeling my normal self. My body clock is seriously foobarbed at this point. Sleeping when I should be awake, Awake when I should be asleep. It’s just farking beautiful. So, yesterday was not a good day. I ended up not going with the old man shopping, I just did not feel like it. I did help him bring the stuff (Food) in the house though. So, I should avoid the abyss; this time. đ
Hold on to your hats, because this one is huge.
Gov. Rod Blagojevich is expected today to name former Illinois Atty. Gen. Roland Burris to replace President-elect Barack Obama in the U.S. Senate.
The action comes despite warnings by Democratic Senate leaders that they would not seat anyone appointed by the disgraced governor who faces criminal charges of trying to sell the post, sources familiar with the decision said.
Shortly after Obama’s Nov. 4 victory, Burris made known his interest in an appointment to the Senate but was never seriously considered, according to Blagojevich insiders. But in the days following Blagojevich’s arrest, and despite questions over the taint of a Senate appointment, Burris stepped up his efforts to win the governor’s support.
Though he is 71, Burris has said that Obama’s replacement should be able to win re-election and he has noted that despite a string of primary losses in races ranging from Chicago mayor to governor and U.S. senator, he’s never lost to a Republican.
Blagojevich, who has sole authority to name a replacement senator, scheduled a 2 p.m. news conference at his downtown Chicago office.
Of course, Harry Reid is having none of it, at all
The Senate will not seat Roland Burris if Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich attempts to appoint him, a Democratic leadership aide said.
Majority Leader Harry Reid views Burris as "unacceptable," the aide said.
Oy. I bet that presser is going to be, um, Interesting. Allah Pundit calls it a "Total Clusterfark." Indeed. 
However, one could argue that this election cycle was a "cluster fark" from the word go. Especially the stuff with Hillary. She was like the child that just would not take no for an answer, funny thing is, she going to be the Secretary of State. Retreads Change you can appoint?
The neat part about all this, that it puts Reid in a spot. If he does not accept the appointment it could be, but most likely won’t be; viewed as racist by some. Which I think was quite the slick move by the Governor.
However, I most likely will not be around to see the whole thing go down. My Dad and I are supposed to go shopping. So, my blogging for the remainder of the day will be scattered. Lovely. đ
Have I ever mentioned how much I despise shopping? Especially with my dad? Oy. I’d rather be water boarded. (Well, Sorta…)
Others: The Campaign Spot, Don Surber (Via Memeornadum)
For some reason or another, I just don’t believe it at all.
The full report is over at Politico, if you care to read such stuff. Patterico also has a good take on it as well.
Quotable Quotes:
âParties become much more pragmatic when theyâve won,â says Joe Trippi, who heads the media firm Trippi Multimedia, and who managed Howard Deanâs 2004 presidential campaign and advised John Edwards in 2008.
âAt least in the initial stages, theyâre going to try to work together [with Obama] to see what parts of their agenda they can get through,â he says. And they recognize, he adds, that they will get more of their agenda passed if they donât start trouble when they donât need to.
[….]
For his part, Pariser says he will do what his members want, no matter which way it takes the organization or what the implications are for its future. âI believe the fact that we hear something from all over the place at the same time means it probably is what we should do with the country,â he says. âI maybe drank the Kool Aid in civics class a little too much, but I think if you put your faith in that, you really donât go wrong. People gravitate very quickly to the big things that are at the core of their problems.â
âIt also makes our jobs easier,â he adds, âbecause we just do what weâre told.â
Okay, here’s why I don’t buy this line of bunk for one minute. Because I know how Liberals think. President-Elect Obama is not in office yet, nobody, not even me; knows how he is going to Govern. The so-called experts say he will run from the Middle; and based upon his cabinet picks, this might be true. To me, however, it looks more like a Clinton retread White House. So much for the “Hope & Change” mantra throughout the campaign.
Anyhow, however; you let Barack Obama let one of his big campaign promises slip, like Nationalized Health care. The very minute that Barack Obama begins to make noises like he is not going to be able to pass Nationalized Health Care, and MoveOn and DailyKos will turn on Obama on a fucking dime. I know how Liberals are, They lack something that is pretty much a norm in the Conservative circles; and that’s Loyalty. Loyalty to Party, Loyalty to principles; this past election being a perfect example of that, and loyalty to a leader. Oh, they’ll be loyal to him, as long as Obama performs for them, and carries out their agenda. But the very minute he strays; it’s over man. The far left will turn on a dime and it will be Bush Derangement on the other foot in full force. Sorry Trippi, I don’t buy the B.S. line of Liberals being Pragmatic. If 1968 was proof of anything, it was proof that the far left or the rank and file within the Democratic Party is nowhere near Pragmatic.
So, to sum it up; while this might sound nice and pretty and all. It is nothing more than some sort of a “Dog and Pony Show” to appease those within the Democratic Leadership that might worried that groups like this may try an turn popular opinion against Obama. While the mindless sheep might buy it, I do not; because I know the mindset, I know how they act. Loyal, until you slip up and then BAM! It’s over.
Nice try guys, but we’re just a bit more smarter than that.
When president-elect Barack Obama chose evangelical leader Rick Warren to lead a prayer at his inauguration the cultural Left threw the predictable fits. Said Kathryn Kolbert, president of People for the American Way, âthis decision further elevates someone who has in recent weeks actively promoted legalized discrimination and denigrated the lives and relationships of millions of Americans,â referring to the recently passed anti-gay marriage referendum, Proposition 8 in California. Said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, âby inviting Rick Warren to your inauguration, you have tarnished the view that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans have a place at your table.â Added Democratic political consultant Chad Griffith âRick Warren needs to realize that he is further dividing us at a time when the country needs to come together.â
In light of the Rick Warren controversy, such âcoming togetherâ rhetoric, so often mouthed by champions of âdiversityâ has one again proven to be a farce. For a true âcoming togetherâ of any sort on social issues, one might expect political opponents to either agree-to-disagree, yet still join and work together where they can, or for both sides to at least concede some principles as a compromise. In this case, as in most cases, the champions of diversity simply do not want an evangelical of Warrenâs stripe to even be allowed a seat at the table. And while Warren hasnât budged from his stance on gay marriage, neither will the Left anytime soon. It seems that the oft-desired âcoming togetherâ means not any new, warm embrace, but unconditional surrender, where only conservatives are always expected to wave the white flag.
The rise of social issues in American politics has as much to do with campaign strategies as the issues themselves. Gay marriage has become for the Democrats what abortion has long been for Republicans â issues that are better left unresolved because they are too useful in controlling certain voters. Any liberal or moderate Republican worried about shoring up his evangelical base can do so by mouthing just the right amount of pro-life rhetoric during his campaign, knowing full-well he has no intention of seriously revisiting the subject after the election. Just ask John McCain. To woo the cultural Left, the tiniest illustration by Democrats that they are at least favorable to gay-marriage is enough to garner those votes, even if itâs practically invisible on their actual agenda. Just ask Barack Obama.
Social issues like gay marriage and abortion remain trivialities not because they arenât important â but because neither are likely to be solved precisely because neither party benefits from doing so. Why do mainstream Republicans or Democrats not demand statesâ rights solutions, where individual states would be free to legalize or outlaw gay marriage or abortion according to the popular will? Because neither party really wants any real solutions. The purpose of a Republican supporting something like the Defense of Marriage Act is not to protect marriage per se, but to protect your office by signaling to voters that you stand on the right side of an issue that you and your successors hope never goes away. Likewise, in standing against the Defense of Marriage Act, Democrats benefit for the exact opposite reason.
Rick Warrenâs invocation at Obamaâs inauguration will not be a brighter, sadder or even different new day in the culture wars â but a symbolic gesture by the president-elect whose very rise to power has been more symbolic than substantive. Leftists who believe Warrenâs mere presence at the inauguration represents anything tragic are as naĂŻve as those on the Right who might believe it represents promise. And in both satisfying and enraging both sides of the social issues fence by inviting Warren to his swearing-in, the president-elect may indeed be introducing a new symbolic style, if only to cover-up the same old lack of substance.
When president-elect Barack Obama chose evangelical leader Rick Warren to lead a prayer at his inauguration the cultural Left threw the predictable fits. Said Kathryn Kolbert, president of People for the American Way, âthis decision further elevates someone who has in recent weeks actively promoted legalized discrimination and denigrated the lives and relationships of millions of Americans,â referring to the recently passed anti-gay marriage referendum, Proposition 8 in California. Said Joe Solmonese, president of the Human Rights Campaign, âby inviting Rick Warren to your inauguration, you have tarnished the view that gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender Americans have a place at your table.â Added Democratic political consultant Chad Griffith âRick Warren needs to realize that he is further dividing us at a time when the country needs to come together.â
In light of the Rick Warren controversy, such âcoming togetherâ rhetoric, so often mouthed by champions of âdiversityâ has one again proven to be a farce. For a true âcoming togetherâ of any sort on social issues, one might expect political opponents to either agree-to-disagree, yet still join and work together where they can, or for both sides to at least concede some principles as a compromise. In this case, as in most cases, the champions of diversity simply do not want an evangelical of Warrenâs stripe to even be allowed a seat at the table. And while Warren hasnât budged from his stance on gay marriage, neither will the Left anytime soon. It seems that the oft-desired âcoming togetherâ means not any new, warm embrace, but unconditional surrender, where only conservatives are always expected to wave the white flag.
The rise of social issues in American politics has as much to do with campaign strategies as the issues themselves. Gay marriage has become for the Democrats what abortion has long been for Republicans â issues that are better left unresolved because they are too useful in controlling certain voters. Any liberal or moderate Republican worried about shoring up his evangelical base can do so by mouthing just the right amount of pro-life rhetoric during his campaign, knowing full-well he has no intention of seriously revisiting the subject after the election. Just ask John McCain. To woo the cultural Left, the tiniest illustration by Democrats that they are at least favorable to gay-marriage is enough to garner those votes, even if itâs practically invisible on their actual agenda. Just ask Barack Obama.
Social issues like gay marriage and abortion remain trivialities not because they arenât important â but because neither are likely to be solved precisely because neither party benefits from doing so. Why do mainstream Republicans or Democrats not demand statesâ rights solutions, where individual states would be free to legalize or outlaw gay marriage or abortion according to the popular will? Because neither party really wants any real solutions. The purpose of a Republican supporting something like the Defense of Marriage Act is not to protect marriage per se, but to protect your office by signaling to voters that you stand on the right side of an issue that you and your successors hope never goes away. Likewise, in standing against the Defense of Marriage Act, Democrats benefit for the exact opposite reason.
Rick Warrenâs invocation at Obamaâs inauguration will not be a brighter, sadder or even different new day in the culture wars â but a symbolic gesture by the president-elect whose very rise to power has been more symbolic than substantive. Leftists who believe Warrenâs mere presence at the inauguration represents anything tragic are as naĂŻve as those on the Right who might believe it represents promise. And in both satisfying and enraging both sides of the social issues fence by inviting Warren to his swearing-in, the president-elect may indeed be introducing a new symbolic style, if only to cover-up the same old lack of substance.
Jack Hunter Blogs at The Southern Avenger and Taki’s Magazine
It seems that Bambi made it to see the vets. How nice. Pretty funny, seeing he hasn’t served a damn day in the Military.
I also have an e-mail to share, that I got this morning, I was wondering what it was about. Now I know.
President-elect Obama stopped by the Marine Corps base in Hawaii Kaneche Bay where servicemen and -women were eating Christmas dinner in Kailua Thursday evening.
âJust wanted to say hi, hey guys,â Obama said as he walked into the Anderson dining hall which was decked out in Christmas decorations.
The diners represented seven military units — Marine and Navy — some of whom were joined by their families for Christmas dinner.
As Obama entered the room, it was absent of the regular fanfare of cheering and clapping. The diners were polite, staying seated at their respective tables and waited for the president-elect to come to them to stand up.
Obama, dressed casually in a blue polo shirt and dark khaki trousers, worked his way around the room — table by table — and took pictures with the service members. He slapped them on the back at times, shook hands, and signed some autographs.
âHey guys, Merry Christmas,â The president-elect said as he walked from table to table.
The servicemen and -women were already seated at their holiday dinner when the president-elect made his impromptu visit. They were dining on salad, candied sweet potato with marshmallow topping, cream of mushroom soup, mashed potatoes, beef, ham, turkey, broccoli and corn.
The president-elect spent about an hour with the troops. Obama transition aides say that Obama did not eat with the uniformed men and women — he ate at his beach home with his family and friends Christmas night.
I think it goes without saying, that Obama was not among friends.
Others: Atlas Shrugs, Sister Toldjah, RedState, BLACKFIVE, Gateway Pundit, Hugh Hewitt, Power Line
A stunning admission from the far left, but not a huge surprise.
Via The L.A. Times:
I don’t love America. That’s what conservatives are always telling liberals like me. Their love, they insist, is truer, deeper and more complete. Then liberals, like all people who are accused of not loving something, stammer, get defensive and try to have sex with America even though America will then accuse us of wanting it for its body and not its soul. When America gets like that, there’s no winning.
But I’ve come to believe conservatives are right. They do love America more. Sure, we liberals claim that our love is deeper because we seek to improve the United States by pointing out its flaws. But calling your wife fat isn’t love. True love is the blind belief that your child is the smartest, cutest, most charming person in the world, one you would gladly die for. I’m more in “like” with my country.
A rather mind-numbing statement and a rather frank admission. That is the whole problem with Liberals, they would rather focus on America’s flaws, than focus on it’s greatness. He goes on to blather on about Sean Hannity and Glenn Beck.
But this is what bothered me:
Conservatives feel personally blessed to have been born in the only country worth living in. I, on the other hand, just feel lucky to have grown up in a wealthy democracy. If it had been Australia, Britain, Ireland, Canada, Italy, Spain, France, Luxembourg, Belgium, the Netherlands, Switzerland, Japan, Israel or one of those Scandinavian countries with more relaxed attitudes toward sex, that would have been fine with me too.
Hell, why stop there? Why not just move to somewhere more inline with your beliefs, like say, Iran, Russia or maybe North Korea?
The Communist Blathers on:
I wish I felt such certainty. Sure, it makes life less interesting and nuanced, and absolute conviction can lead to dangerous extremism, but I suspect it makes people happier. I’ll never experience the joy of Hannity-level patriotism. I’m the type who always wonders if some other idea or place or system is better and I’m missing out. And, as I figured out shortly after meeting my wife, that is no way to love.
Stop The ACLU agrees with my assessment:
And yeah, I understand the point of the column. Itâs a criticism. Weâre âblindedâ by love to the point where we donât even see Americaâs flaws. But thatâs not quite true. I see them, as do many conservatives. But unlike liberals, thatâs not all I see. I look at America and love her for everything she is, both the good and the bad. I look at my country, and despite the mistakes we have made and inevitably will continue to make, still know that this is the freest, best country on the face of the Earth, know that anyone from anywhere in the world can come here and build a good life for themselves if theyâre only willing to work hard and play by the rules, that America will always stand for freedom and justice and democracy.
Liberals look at America, and have a hard time feeling the love and patriotism that conservatives feel because they canât get get past the flaws. They canât love America unless she is perfect. Conservatives, however, donât require perfection to know that America is, indeed, a special, blessed place. It doesnât mean that the rest of the world is a terrible, terrible place. It doesnât mean that no one can possibly have a great life anywhere else. However, despite what many Little League coaches and PC teachers may believe, not every runner can finish the race in first, and while the rest of the world may be great, itâs just not the USA.
I could not have put it better myself.  However, I’ll take it a step further, if the Communist is dissatisfied with America and all of it’s supposed “Flaws”, he can always leave, there is not a law forcing him to live here.
Some good news from Iraq.
Via FOXNews.com:
Iraq’s Christians, a small minority in the overwhelmingly Muslim country, quietly celebrated Christmas on Thursday with a present from the government, which declared it an official holiday for the first time.
But security worries overshadowed the day for many, particularly in the north where thousands of Christians have fled to escape religious attacks.
Overall security in Iraq has improved markedly in the past year, but a fatal car bombing in Baghdad on Christmas morning was a gruesome reminder that serious problems remain.
The bombing outside a restaurant frequented by police killed four people and wounded 25 others in the Shiite neighborhood of Shula, said a police officer speaking on condition of anonymity because he was not authorized to give information to news media.
Also Thursday, an oil official said attackers blew up a pipeline in the city of Kirkuk. The official, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said the attack occurred Wednesday and pumping was expected to resume within three days.
In his homily on Thursday, Chaldean Cardinal Emmanuel III Delly praised the establishment of Christmas as an official holiday as a step toward easing tensions.
“I thank it too for making this day an official holiday where we pray to God to make us trust each other as brothers,” he said at the Christmas Mass before several dozen worshippers in the small chapel of a Baghdad monastery.
A senior Shiite cleric, Ammar al-Hakim attended the event, flanked by bodyguards, in a gesture of cooperation with Christians.
“I thank the visitors here and ask them to share happiness and love with their brothers on Christmas. By this they will build a glorious Iraq,” the cardinal said.
Unlike some liberals, who only want to look on the bad side of everything, (No wonder Sean threw you off of his show, idiot.) I think that this is proof that the surge is working. There is no doubt, that there is much work to do in Iraq. But this is a sign that there is some progress in Iraq.
What pisses me off, about the Liberals is this; they refused to admit that we won the overall war on terror in Iraq. Granted, we went there on bad information, I do admit that, as do many Conservatives; but the Liberals continue to repeat that dead fucking tired line of, “We cannot win, we have to leave and let these people fight their own battles.” Further more, they are the most irresponsible people ever. If we just pack up and leave, without fixing what we broke, without making DAMN sure that the Iraqi’s can defend themselves from attack from another Nation, we would be responsible for the worst case of genocide ever.
The Liberals refuse to see that Muqtada al-Sadr is all but irrelevant and hiding in Iran. The insurgency over, other than the spurious car bomb, things are back to normal. It sad that the Communist Liberals won’t give our Military the credit it deserves for accomplishing that enormous feat.
I just wonder how long it will be, before the Magic One will just remove all of our troops from Afghanistan and say, “Oh well, we deserved 9/11 anyhow, so, we’re not going to fight no more!” It would not surprise me at all.
The Moderate Voice, Scared Monkeys, TigerHawk, Gateway Pundit, and Don Surber
This was sent to me by the smartest Democrat I know………………My Mom. đ
Jackie and Dunlap talk to the corruptest, bribe-takin’est governor in all of America– Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. Find out how much it’ll cost to find out Obama’s involvement!
(CONTENT WARNING NSFW!)
Exit Comment: This video solves the riddle of how many times you can put the f-bomb in a video. WOW! đŽ
Jackie and Dunlap talk about hippie churches, gay rights, and Home Improvement.
This is just absolutely flippin’ crazy!
Via Seattle, Washington’s Times:
To hear the city’s spin, Seattle’s road crews are making “great progress” in clearing the ice-caked streets.
But it turns out “plowed streets” in Seattle actually means “snow-packed,” as in there’s snow and ice left on major arterials by design.
“We’re trying to create a hard-packed surface,” said Alex Wiggins, chief of staff for the Seattle Department of Transportation. “It doesn’t look like anything you’d find in Chicago or New York.”
The city’s approach means crews clear the roads enough for all-wheel and four-wheel-drive vehicles, or those with front-wheel drive cars as long as they are using chains, Wiggins said.
The icy streets are the result of Seattle’s refusal to use salt, an effective ice-buster used by the state Department of Transportation and cities accustomed to dealing with heavy winter snows.
“If we were using salt, you’d see patches of bare road because salt is very effective,” Wiggins said. “We decided not to utilize salt because it’s not a healthy addition to Puget Sound.”
By ruling out salt and some of the chemicals routinely used by snowbound cities, Seattle has embraced a less-effective strategy for clearing roads, namely sand sprinkled on top of snowpack along major arterials, and a chemical de-icer that is effective when temperatures are below 32 degrees.
Seattle also equips its plows with rubber-edged blades. That minimizes the damage to roads and manhole covers, but it doesn’t scrape off the ice, Wiggins said.
That leaves many drivers, including Seattle police, pretty much on their own until nature does to the snow what the sand can’t: melt it.
The city’s patrol cars are rear-wheel drive. And even with tire chains, officers are avoiding hills and responding on foot, according to a West Precinct officer.
Between Thursday and Monday, the city spread about 6,000 tons of sand on 1,531 miles of streets it considers major arterials.
The tonnage, sprinkled atop the packed snow, amounts to 1.4 pounds of sand per linear foot of roadway, an amount one expert said might be too little to provide effective traction.
“Hmmm. Six thousand tons of sand for that length of road doesn’t seem like it’s enough,” said Diane Spector, a water-resources planner for Wenck Associates, which evaluated snow and ice clearance for nine cities in the Midwest.
Spector and snow-control experts in four cities said sand is typically mixed with salt and used for trouble spots.
“The occasional application of salt is probably not going to have a lasting effect” on the environment, Spector said. But she cautioned it’s highly dependent on where it’s used, how often and how much is applied.
Seattle’s stand against using salt is not shared by the state Department of Transportation, which has battled the latest storms in Western Washington with de-icer, 5,800 tons of salt and 11,500 cubic yards of salt and sand mix, said spokesman Travis Phelps.
Many cities are moving away from sand because it clogs the sewers, runs into waterways, creates air pollution and costs more to clean up.
Its main attraction is that it typically costs less than one-fifth the price of salt, according to Spector.
“We never use sand,” said Ann Williams, spokeswoman for Denver’s Department of Public Works. “Sand causes dust, and there’s also water-quality issues where it goes into streets and into our rivers.”
Instead, it sprays an “anti-icing” agent on dry roads before the snow falls and then a combination of chemicals to melt the ice.
Cheryl Kuck, spokeswoman for the Portland Bureau of Transportation, said her city prepared the streets last week with the “anti-icing” spray. Once the snow started, Portland used chemical de-icers, followed by plowing with 55 plows and treating trouble spots with sand and gravel.
Although the city had plowed 29 of its 36 major routes, “nothing is clear,” Kuck said late Monday afternoon. “This is a difficult and challenging situation that’s going to take us a long time to recover from.”
Wiggins, of Seattle’s transportation department, said the city’s 27 trucks had plowed and sanded 100 percent of Seattle’s main roads, and were going back for second and third passes.
“It’s tough going. I won’t argue with you on that,” he said. But here in Seattle, “we’re sensitive about everything we do that impacts the environment.”
Oh My freakin’ goodness! These liberal morons are absolutely out of their flippin’ minds! I mean, not plowing or salting the fucking streets, because they’re afraid of polluting the water? Seriously?!?!
Moonbats! You gotta laugh, otherwise, You’d be scared to death.
These are Obambi’s people man! WOW! đŽ
Update: Hell, even Malkin Agrees with me! đ
Others: Townhall.com, Betsy’s Page and Commentary
I was given this link via twitter a couple days ago, I bookmarked it.
I admit, that I didn’t read the entire thing, But I read enough of it, to see that it is something that everyone, of all political stripes should, in fact, read.
Go here to read, “The Proper Role of Government by Ezra Taft Benson”
More at www.diversitylane.com
Or blog at www.diversitylane.wordpress.com
—-
More at Baloo’s Cartoon Blog
Seriously. That was the first thing out of my mouth.
Already?
In other parts of the country one would say, “That Quick?”
Seems that way, because Richard Cohen has basically said of Obama, that the Party; with him and his lesbian sister, was over.
Quotable Quotes:
Not that he was planning to attend, but Barack Obama should know that my sister’s inauguration night party — the one for which she was preparing Obama Punch — has been canceled. The notice went out over the weekend, by e-mail and word of mouth, that Obama’s choice of Rick Warren to give the inaugural invocation had simply ruined the party. Warren is anti-gay, and my sister, not to put too fine a point on it, is not. She’s gay.
She is — or was — a committed Obama supporter. On the weekend before the presidential election, my sister and my mother drove from the Boston area, where they both live, to Obama’s New Hampshire headquarters in Manchester. There my mother made 76 phone calls for Obama, which is not bad for someone who is 96, and gives you an idea of the level of commitment to Obama in certain precincts of my family.
I should say right off that my mother feels less strongly about Warren than my sister does. But I should add immediately that my sister feels very strongly, indeed. She’s been in a relationship with another woman, the quite wonderful Nancy, for 19 years, and she resents the fact that Warren has likened same-sex marriage to incest, pederasty and polygamy.
Let me just say right here. What you are seeing, is a major let down by the far left. Many on the far left saw Barack Obama is some sort of Liberal Messiah that would make the world all better again, if he were elected. It had to do with much of his election stump speech, which was filled with bombast and platitudes. In reality, Barack Obama is nothing more than just another Chicago liberal politician who will say and do almost anything to get elected to the office in which he is running for.
Of Obama’s Preacher Problems, Cohen Adds:
The conventional thing to say is that Obama has a preacher problem — first the volcanic Jeremiah Wright and now the transparently anti-gay Warren. But the real problem has nothing to do with ministers and everything to do with Obama’s inability or unwillingness to be a moral leader. Sooner or later, he just might have to stand for something.
This was apparent to me almost a year ago when I reported that Obama’s church, the Trinity United Church of Christ, had given a major award to Louis Farrakhan, the anti-Semitic leader of the Nation of Islam. The award was presented in Wright’s name and featured in a cover story in the church’s magazine, Trumpet. When I asked the Obama campaign about this, I was told that Obama himself did not agree with Farrakhan. What a relief!
And what a joke. I never for a moment thought Obama viewed Farrakhan any differently from the way I do. But I also thought that as a U.S. senator, as a presidential candidate or even as a mere citizen, he had an obligation to denounce the award — maybe quit the church. Do something! He did nothing.
Wow! Isn’t that what Republicans and Independent Conservatives were saying, um, for the last 2 years about Obama, but were derided as racists? Man, talking about turning on your own! đŽ
I knew this was coming, I just knew it. The Democratic Party elected someone based upon popularity and it is now coming back to haunt them. I said this way back in the primary, when I was still running this blog over on the old site on Blogger, that Obama was being set up as some sort of “Perfect Liberal” and that the Democrats were setting themselves up for a let down.
Somewhere today, John Edwards and the rest of the Democrats are smiling. Because they are seeing what I am seeing and thinking, “That’s what those assholes get for electing him!” Anytime you elected someone based upon popularity or in Bambi’s case, skin color; it almost always comes back to haunt you, and right now it is.
Something tells me, that this is going to be an interesting four years to come. I predict that by the time Obama’s four years are up, he will be the most hated President among the far left, ever.
Others: Commentary, Babalu Blog, Stop The ACLU, Macsmind and Riehl World View
This is a real rip snorter.
It seems that the New York Times got punked.
Early this morning, we posted a letter that carried the name of Bertrand DelanoĂŤ, the mayor of Paris, sharply criticizing Caroline Kennedy.
This letter was a fake. It should not have been published.
Doing so violated both our standards and our procedures in publishing signed letters from our readers.
We have already expressed our regrets to Mr. DelanoĂŤ’s office and we are now doing the same to you, our readers.
This letter, like most Letters to the Editor these days, arrived by email. It is Times procedure to verify the authenticity of every letter. In this case, our staff sent an edited version of the letter to the sender of the email and did not hear back. At that point, we should have contacted Mr. DelanoĂŤ’s office to verify that he had, in fact, written to us.
We did not do that. Without that verification, the letter should never have been printed.
We are reviewing our procedures for verifying letters to avoid such an incident in the future.
It appears that someone sent them a fake e-mail, and it got published.
Brilliant! đ
Others: Michelle Malkin, Ed Driscoll.com, Gawker, Jules Crittenden, Hot Air, Don Surber, Sister Toldjah, Macsmind, Weekly Standard, Blue Crab Boulevard, Gawker, Pajamas Media, Power Line, Althouse, Patterico’s Pontifications and New York Post (Via Memeorandum)
I am reading with mild amusement of how the Huffington Post is decrying the isolated racist comments being left over on a site called “Team Sarah“.
Um…. Has anyone forgotten about the nastiness on that site towards the right?
Some Examples:
When Ann Coulter’s Dad passed away. (H/T Michelle)
When Jerry Falwell Died that vitriol over at HuffPo was so bad that the site monitors had to close the comments section.
When a missile struck near where Dick Cheney was visiting in Iraq, HuffPo’s comment section when so berserk that the Site Monitors had to close the comments section down.
So, I just do not understand where the HuffPo gets off nailing a site, for doing much of the same stuff they do themselves.
By the way, Arianna, if you happen to read this. Take a fucking english course, you marble-mouthed BITCH! đĄ
It seems that Obama got special permisson to get that website.
Michelle Malkin has the full story and total and complete document dump.
Better late than ever, I suppose. To listen to some Conservatives talk, the loans are open ended and there’s no accountability. Which is, of course, wrong. 
From The Politico:
President George W. Bush stepped in Friday to keep America’s auto industry afloat, announcing a $17.4 billion bailout for GM and Chrysler, with the terms of the loans requiring that the firms radically restructure and show they can become profitable soon.
"If we were to allow the free market to take its course now, it would almost certainly lead to disorderly bankruptcy," Bush said at the White House, in remarks carried live by the national broadcast networks. "In the midst of a financial crisis and a recession, allowing the U.S. auto industry to collapse is not a responsible course of action. The question is how we can best give it a chance to succeed."
Bush said that "bankruptcy now would lead to a disorderly liquidation of American auto companies."
"My economic advisers believe that such a collapse would deal an unacceptably painful blow to hardworking Americans far beyond the auto industry. It would worsen a weak job market and exacerbate the financial crisis," he said. "It could send our suffering economy into a deeper and longer recession."
The money will come from the Wall Street bailout passed by Congress, a reversal for the White House. President-elect Barack Obama and Democrats had long advocated that course, and Bush had resisted it.
Of the total, $13.4 billion will be paid out in December and January, administration officials told reporters in a briefing. The last $4 billion is contingent on release of the second installment of the Wall Street bailout funds by Congress.
As you can see here, there is accountability, there are conditions on the loans, they are not open ended, and if the auto companies do not get their acts together, the loans will be recalled.
Of course, that is not good enough for some Conservatives like Michelle Malkin, who says that someone should sue the Government over the loans to the Auto industry. Yeah, Michelle, like that will really work. 
The Party that you are a cheerleader for, is already in the minority, has been driven to the wilderness; because of that beady-eyed bastard in the White House, why not just drive a damned stake through the heart of the party? I think Michelle needs to seriously look into going to the hospital, because I believe that "Sickness" that she has, is going to her brain. 
Yeah, I know, defend Malkin one day and whack her on the ass with a wet towel the next, it’s all about Equal Opportunity around this Blog. 
Anyhow, some also believe that this will soften Bush’s image a bit, The Moderate Voice’s Joe Gandelman Notes:
It will help add a positive note to the legacy of Bush who, at best, will be considered a highly flawed President and, at worst, rank as one of the worst in American history. The Republicans in the Senate, acting on ideology, regional politics and anti-union sentiment, had scuttled the bailout â giving the GOP an image once again of a party stuck on ideology.
I agree and I disagree; it might soften his image a bit amongst Independents and some moderate Democrats who did not like that guy, but amongst the hard left, I suspect that President Bush will be the most hated President ever.
Personally, I think Bush did what he felt was right, he put his Party politics aside for a change and did what was right, I commend him for it. I just hope that the auto industry uses this money for the proper purposes and gets their damned act together. Our Government has done the right and proper things, now it is time for the Auto Industry to do theirs. Many people are pessimistic about this; I, on the other hand, try to remain positive about this and hope like bloody hell that G.M. does get their act together. For the sake of the retirees, for the sake of all those who have families that work for those companies, for the sake of all the employees of the local and not so local suppliers and their families.
Go read… it is very good.
Yes, I am awake. I was up 30 minutes before the alarm clock went off. Which I believe was amazing. To what extent I slept, I will know later. But I am awake and nursing a mug of coffee. đ
Now about Rick Warren. He’s about as traditional Christianity or “Religious Right” as I am Roman Catholic. (See my “About Me” page to see what I am….)
Me and Paul Proctor, (See Here, Here, Here, and Here) and David Cloud all feel the same way; that Rick Warren is not a genuine representation of Christianity in the traditional sense of the word. In fact, warren scoffs at the idea of a traditional Christianity, in which the true Word of God is used; which is, in this writers opinion, The King James Bible, of course. Instead, he prefers a non-judgmental, feel good, version of Christianity, that uses any version of the Bible that one wants, or as Warren says, “You can read.” and also, he mingles human philosophy and the Word of God. Something which is extremely ignorant and very dangerous. He is in the ranks of Robert Schuller or as I like call him, Robert Schuller with a Hawaiian Shirt. đ
So, in short, while Rick Warren might be the darling of the compromising Neo-Evangelical crowd, he is hardly what I could call a true believer; that is in the True Bible-Believing, Fundamentalist Christianity sense of the word.
I cannot say that I am shocked or even surprised for that matter.
Now, I am sure that you are expecting me to say something rather nasty or even Ann Coulter’ish sounding about this.
Well, Surprise… đ
I have absolutely no issue with Obama being named person of the year. I will explain to you why…
Barack Obama came out of nowhere and defeated the Clinton Machine. Because you and I both know, that knocking Hillary out of the captain’s chair is a feat in itself. You see, unlike some of my fellow Conservatives, I saw what Obama was doing and I thought it was absolutely brilliant. I didn’t agree with some of the tactics that some of his surrogates were using, and still do not; however, I did admire the grace that Obama showed, especially under pressure from some of his worst and fiercest critics. One thing that I can say and any Conservative; of any stripe, would say, if they are being intellectually honest, that they never heard Obama make any sort of “Al Sharpton” sounding statement. I mean; yes, he did drop the occasional reminder that he was a black man. But there was never any of that, “I’m black and oppressed” nonsense that continually flows from the mouths of the race baiting ilk in New York.
Further, let it be known that it is not lost on me, that Obama has a far left progressive ideology. Although, I will say that judging from his cabinet selections so far, it may seem that Obama is going to try to run a White House from a centrist viewpoint and try and avoid some of the more far left politics of his campaign; much to the chagrin of those who are of that political mindset that voted for him. Personally, I think at the very least or at the very worst; Obama may want to raise taxes to pay for some of the debt that this Nation has incurred at the hands of a quasi-Conservative President. This could be more the case if both of the wars continue to drag on. Not to mention that if every Business in America gets a poorly named “Bail out.”
From a libertarian conservative viewpoint I simply say this; this election was not Obama’s to necessarily win, it was John McCain’s to lose. John McCain was having to follow and associate himself with a very unpopular President, who, in this writers opinion, was elected on the basis of pedigree. Further, John McCain just was not able to articulate Conservative positions without sounding like some old feeble grandfather who was telling a bedtime story. Not to mention, that the economy took a rather large nosedive in the middle of the election cycle. Adding to all this; McCain made some rather disastrous campaign decisions that in essence doomed his campaign to failure. I could sit here and list them all, but I believe anyone who has been following this election cycle as much as I have, knows what I am referring to.
So, in closing, this award, was one well deserved. I hope Obama enjoyes the romance with the media, because I have a sinking feeling it will not last forever.
I hate to be the resident Conservative Flag pole runner upper… But for Pete sakes man… The stuff is just flippin’ wrong.
Seen over a Gawker.com which was written by a Hamilton Nolan, a suspected child molester: (of which I’ve made my appearence there..and for the record, the posting was up less than 4-6 hours… not 12)
Brief and sinister. Sure, Bush had Fox news yakker Tony Snow as his press secretary, but Tony Snow was an out-and-out smiling conservative asshole even before he got to the White House. All this time America trusted Jay Carney to give them the real unbiased news on the campaign, right there in the trusted pages of Time, an it turns out he was privately on Biden’s team the entire time! Will America ever trust the media again?
Oh, How quaint, insult a dead man. Now, if he were a Liberal and some Conservative had said something like this. It would be front page news. But because it is a Conservative, it is perfectly fine. đ
In case anyone has forgotten, Tony Snow died with cancer. He left a loving wife and 3 kids; 2 sons and a daughter.
Here’s the idiots picture:
Hamilton Nolan - Liberal asshole of the week
According to this, this hosebag piece of liberal shit worked for PR Week before going to gawker.
Here’s the asshole’s e-mail address, let this asshat know what you really think: hamilton@gawker.com
Ana Marie Cox sure did create a fucking monster, when she created that shit rag of a Blog.
My good friend, Tom DeWeese, chairman of the American Policy Center, recently issued an urgent alert regarding a revived effort to assemble a modern Constitutional Convention. Mind you, the United States has not assembled such a Convention since 1787, when a Constitutional Convention replaced the Articles of Confederation with the U.S. Constitution. Fortunately, the delegates to the Con Con of 1787 were composed of freedom-loving patriots who had just fought a bloody war for independence and were in no mind to reenact tyranny upon the land they had just fought to liberate. However, can one imagine what would happen if the current bunch of politically correct leftists in Washington, D.C., were to be granted the power to rewrite our Constitution? It would be the end of the United States of America, and that is no hyperbole.
The modern Con Con effort began back in the 1970s. Since then, 32 states have issued the call. The total number of states that are required to enact the Con Con is 34. Simple math reveals that we are only two states short of this disaster. As word of this potential calamity began to surface, the effort stalled with the total states issuing the call stuck at 32. With the election of Barack Obama, however, supporters of a Con Con have been emboldened and are now trying to resurrect the momentum. The state that is currently in the crosshairs appears to be Ohio.
States that have already approved a Con Con include Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Delaware, Colorado, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Mississippi, Missouri, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming. A few of these states have since seen the error of their ways and have voted to rescind their approvals. This fact, alone, should be enough to kill the push for another Con Con, but don’t expect the powers that be to see it that way. Therefore, it seems that if Ohio approves the Con Con, only one more state would be required, and upon the call of that 34th state, a Con Con would be seated. And, no doubt, state number 34 is already sitting quietly, but excitedly, in the wings, ready to act with “lightning speed” to seal the deal.
Lest anyone take this lightly or think that a Constitutional Convention is no big deal, DeWeese properly warned, “In truth no restrictive language from any state can legally limit the scope or outcome of a [Constitutional] Convention! Once a Convention is called Congress determines how the delegates to the Convention are chosen. Once chosen, those Convention delegates possess more power than the U.S. Congress itself.”
DeWeese is right. If called, a modern Constitutional Convention could declare the U.S. Constitution to be null and void, and could completely rewrite the document. For example, former U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice Warren Burger once declared, “There is no effective way to limit or muzzle the actions of a Constitutional Convention. The Convention could make its own rules and set its own agenda.”
Given the fact that Washington, D.C., is comprised mostly of Big-Government liberals and neocons, it is almost certain that the founders’ Constitution–which was founded on the principles of Natural Law that protects individual liberty–would be replaced with some sort of “collective rights” document protecting an ambiguous “common good.” At that point, there is no more United States of America. There would be no more Bill of Rights protecting individuals from governmental abuse and overreach. Furthermore, the principles of Natural Law would be forever removed as a basis of all our nation’s laws and statutes. The nation that had been bequeathed to us by our forebears would be gone forever.
Yes, it is that bad, and, yes, it is that close to happening!
In the short term, every freedom-loving American must do everything they can RIGHT NOW to prevent this from happening. Since the state of Ohio is currently in the crosshairs, it would behoove us to contact every person we know in Ohio and do whatever it takes to motivate them to be sure to let their Ohio legislators know how dangerous this is. Residents and citizens of Ohio need to make sure the Ohio legislature rejects the call for a Constitutional Convention. By the same token, it would be wise for all of us who live in states that have not yet ratified the call for a Con Con to contact our state legislators to make sure that they understand the issue, and that they will do everything in their power to resist any attempt to call for a Constitutional Convention.
For more information on the status of a new Con Con and how to fight it, go to the American Policy Center web site.
In the longer term, there is another question that must be addressed. What will we do if and when a modern Constitutional Convention is called and our U.S. Constitution is declared null and void, with a completely new constitution enacted? Which states will reject the new constitution? Which states will declare their independence from any such new union? Or, will they all surrender their state constitutions and go along with this Twenty-First Century New World Order–a New World Order that will doubtless incorporate some form of North American Community or Union?
It might be a very good idea to immediately begin identifying those states that would unequivocally reject any new union, and would be willing to declare their independence from whatever government would evolve from a modern Constitutional Convention. Yes, I am saying it: we may need to resurrect the original Thirteen Colonies, except they would probably not number thirteen, and, in all likelihood, they would not be located on the East Coast.
I am convinced that there are still millions of Americans who are sick and tired of surrendering their liberties to Big-Government sycophants in both the Democrat and Republican parties, and that if a Constitutional Convention is called–and our U.S. Constitution is wiped away or rewritten–are ready and willing to declare their independence all over again. So, I issue the call: where are the new Thirteen Colonies?
We better start looking now, because there will come a point when the time for looking for good ground is over and the time to stand our ground will be upon us.
Original Article in Question at American Policy Center and an update to the Story
(Via NewsWithViews)
