Dr. Asten: I wonder if they'll get away with it this time...

I wrote that back in 2006, when the Democrats took advantage of a litany of Republican vulnerabilities, that they could stop bitching about the way government was running at the time, and do something about it. They complained about high gas prices, how President Bush was fucking up in Iraq, the spending like drunken sailors, etc. In the three years since they took the majority, they claimed they were powerless against Bush, even though they had more than enough votes to override his vetoes. When things began looking bad for them, they continued to blame Bush, and that meme stuck with the electorate up until this past election. Even with DC being fully Democratic, not just the local government, they're still blaming Bush and he's been out of office for almost 7 months.

I can't say that I totally blame Democrats, since this play has worked over and over again and the Republican Party has been powerless to stop it. Like in a football game, if your opponent can't adjust their defense to sack your quarterback or stop the run, keep running the play until they do. Eventually, however, this makes the game all the more predictable, not to mention, boring. With the economy still continuing to slip, unemployment on the rise, and our taxes going up, Democrats need to take the focus off of them and divert the attention of the masses back to something that gets them sympathy...blame Bush (notice the time period...).

I will continue to peddle my theme that Democrats are covering up for Obamessiah's failings, by trying to keep the masses from waking up from their slumber. The latest distraction involves Speaker of the House, San Fran Gran Nan and CIA Director, Leon Panetta. The dustup is based on Granny McBotoximplants' suggestion that the CIA routinely misleads Congress, and Panetta claiming they do not. A testimony by Panetta on June 24th seems to vindicate Speaker Mimi, but according to ABC News' Jonathan Karl, it doesn't. Panetta isn't changing his statement, and as Andrea Mitchell told Keith Olbermann, the letter fired off by six Democrats on the House Select Intelligence Committee are Pelosi sycophants, and don't represent a majority of the Democrats on the committee. Not even the committee chairman, Silvestre Reyes, believe the dustup vindicates Speaker Pelosi, so unfortunately for Alan Colmes...she's not getting one anytime soon. In a surprise move, conservatives and Republicans are being blamed for this scandal.

Something which I don't understand. It was Pelosi who questioned the candor of the CIA, not the other way around. Besides, Pelosi has enough sycophants in the House to launch and investigation into the charges she made...she didn't. It isn't clear, yet, what was discussed in Panetta's meeting with the committee in June, but sources do indicate that interrogation techniques were not the topic of discussion. He only mentioned a technique that hadn't been properly briefed to members of Congress, not that the CIA lied to the body. That won't prevent Democrats from trying to shift blame, as they've been doing that since the 1800s.

Have a great day...

...I just don't want it dirtying my pool...

There is a story coming out of Philadelphia where a group of black children were turned away from a private swimming club. From the looks of it, race appears to be the reason. The club's president, Dr. John G. Duesler, complained that the black children were changing the complexion of the pool. While I do admit that black children ARE darker than white ones, and I thank Dr. Duesler for stating the obvious, that is not a legitimate reason to deny children the ability to swim in a pool that their day camp paid almost $2000 to rent. If the Valley Swim Club had a problem with black children, they shouldn't have taken their green money (it was later refunded).

One of the children quoted a regular patron of the club complaining about the number of black children at the pool, and feared they may make her child more black. It would be one thing if the children entered the club unruly, as children often do, and not only minority ones. According to the NBC affiliate in Philly, that was not the case. This is the type of stuff Al and Jesse should focus on, and not whether Sarah Palin murdered Michael Jackson (no, I ain't lying...). I have never said that the door on race relations is closed, but I have stressed a need by the race pimps to focus more on actual occurrences of racism, not ones they dream about. h/t: Pam's House Blend

If reports are correct, the Dr. John G. Duesler from the Valley Swim Club, had no problem supporting a black man for president. In fact, he took no issue with trying to "change the complexion" of the White House by running a blood drive in days before Obamessiah took the Oath of Office. Sounds to me like Dr. Duesler is one of those liberals who abide by the old liberal creed, "do as I say, not as I do" or "I have no problem with tolerating other cultures, but I don't want to look at the bastards..."

I am willing to bet that Dr. Duesler will not apologize for his statement, and will staunchly defend his club's position...

Have a great day...

...let's focus on more pertinent issues, like forever apologizing to blacks for enslaving them...

I recall during last year's Republican National Convention how liberals were outraged at videos replaying the events of September 11th. They were afraid that people were going to see how Democrats are forever going to be tainted as the party who is soft on terror. They cried that the RNC was using the videos for political purposes, and that it should be declared off-limits. This would be absurd, if it didn't come from the same group of people that had to be reminded incessantly that people die in military conflicts, continued to believe President Bush had advanced knowledge of the attacks on 9/11, and tried to pass yet another congressional resolution apologizing for slavery...shit, bad examples!

It goes without saying that the slave trade was a blemish in US History, but the US has more than made up for it, despite Democratic protestations for granting blacks equal treatment under the law. Today, a black man and woman can reach the highest levels of government and private industries. Lest people forget, the United States has, for the first time in its history, a black president. It's puzzling why Congress continues to debate this issue, and not focus on more pertinent issues, like the unemployment rate of blacks and Hispanics, which stands at 14.9% and 12.7% respectively. Instead, we have a prominent Democrat authoring a House resolution, cosponsored by the Congressional Black Caucus, honoring the "legacy" of Michael Jackson, who I think contributed much less to society than he's given credit for. I definitely will not allow my children to look to him as a role model.

As long as Democrats in Congress, and Republicans who exhibit "white guilt," believe Jim Crow still rules the day in Amurica, we'll continue to be exposed to meaningless congressional resolutions and fear of "offending" blacks, and other minorities, by encouraging them to take responsibility for their actions. The government does not have the money to continue to play parent to grown-ass men and women. I mean, it's fine to seek aid from the government for temporary assistance...but to make a livelihood of government dependence breeds the culture of irresponsibility that permeates the black community, as well as other cultures who thrive on government dependence.

Then again, who would hire Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson, if they became jobless?

Have a great day...

...Paul Krugman, the arbiter of failure, hasn't declared such...

Nothing gets liberals' hotter than dissing their Golden Child (but they hail the Russians...WEIRD!). All of a sudden, we have to play nice with Obama because he's still cleaning up "George W. Bush's mess." I don't know about you, but when I, or my parents had to clean up messes, they didn't create more of the same mess to exacerbate the problem. We did what needed to be done and the mess was dealt with. We didn't try to scare the shit out of everybody and demand they create more of a headache by overblowing the significance of the problem at hand. When the job market took a nosedive in the final months of President Bush's term, he forsook his free-market principles and set the course for our current situation. President Obama preached fiscal responsibility throughout the campaign, and John McCain's chicken-with-his-head-cut-off response to the situation showed that Obama may have had a better handle on the situation than the Republican presidential nominee. I noted that President Obama was silent on the growing beast during his time as a US Senator, and only addressed it when it became a Republican liability...even though a majority of people, and the media, still believed Republicans held the majority on Capitol Hill. This, despite video showing how Barney Frank, and several other Democrats, claimed there was no problem and that Republicans were being racists for drawing attention to it.

We are in our current situation, according to liberals, because of Ronald Raygun and "supply-side economics," (even though NO Republican politician has ever ran on such a platform) not because of Jimmy Carter's runaway inflation, blaming Amuricans in his "malaise" speech, or his just all-around ineptitude. They are under this notion that the 1980s represented a decade of greed, personified by the TV shows, Dallas and Dynasty. These are the same people who believe that Clinton was a "moderate centrist" (and they call conservatives dumb...), and had a budget surplus that Bushitler and his "war of lies" squandered (I wonder which 'war' they're referring to...). Unfortunately for them, and the "historical revisionists" that Historical Revisionist Keith Olbermann despises, President Clinton nevuh...I repeat, NEVUH had a budget surplus. Every year of his presidency, the national debt increased. MMFA lashes out at Rush Limbaugh for pointing out, truthfully, the Clinton surplus myth...but, as usual, they fall flat on their face.

Usually, when people try to peddle the myth, they cite the Congressional Budget Office numbers, and state that since they're non-partisan, they don't favor one party over the other. What they fail to mention is the CBO can be political and their numbers may or may not be accurate. The numbers used by MMFA to try and call Limbaugh a liar, don't add up and did not include all the criteria used to determine the national deficit, as shown on Craig Steiner's website:

However, further analysis of the document should make it very clear that important information is missing from the CBO document--specifically focusing on the last two columns of the table on page 1. If you take the $3,772.3 billion debt held by the public at the end of 1997 and subtract the "total" $69.3 billion surplus stated for 1998, you would expect to see the debt go down by 69.3 billion to $3,703 billion. Instead, the debt indicated for 1998 is $3,721.1 billion--suggesting a surplus of only $51.2 billion. This alone should tell you that the CBO numbers aren't telling the whole story because they don't add up--and the story they aren't telling is intergovernmental holdings.

Funny how liberal criticism of the economy somehow absolves Clinton. Even I felt that he was restrained from being pre-Obama because of the Republican-led Congress. Media Matters is also upset that conservative critics of Porkulus haven't listened to Paul Krugman, who hasn't said flatly, the stimulus hasn't stemmed the tide of the shrinking economy. Left out of MMFA's diatribe is the fact that many Democrats are feeling the heat in the kitchen as well. They are noticing the stimulus hasn't had the intended effect, and furthermore, the "stimulus" money that has been spent already, has been used to protect government bureaucrats, not the private sector, which is why the unemployment rate continues to rise. The state governments mostly used the money to pay down state deficits...which, cash strapped California was going to do. The idea was to protect the state bureaucracy, not the private sector (Wreckovery.com indeed!). Michelle Malkin has for your perusal, two documents that detail how Porkulus has been spent AND a GOP report dissecting the failures of Wreckovery.com Part One. And stupid-assed Democrats are floating the idea of Wreckovery.com Part Two...

Neal Boortz offered a suggestion during the 10 o'clock hour on his radio program. Although I don't know too much about economics, as I stayed far, far away from that subject in college, it sounded like a pretty good plan. He suggested the Obama Administration could extend to corporations who have overseas tax shelters, to bring that capital back to the US, with no tax penalty. According to Boortz, about $16 Trillion of overseas tax shelters of US corporations helps to support the economies of other nations, because of the high tax penalty in the US. If Obama were to extend this amnesty for about half of that money, Boortz suggested, what wonders it would do for our economy. Obama's not really interested in recovering the economy, since he's using the confiscatory policies of the government, and pledging more regulations.

They must have had a sale on the antidote for Obama-Aid(hur, hur, hur...). John Harwood, of CNBC, suggested that the "stimulus" money is not being used in ways the Obama Administration had hoped, since the government did not spend it fast enough, and based on Vice President Biden's suggestion that the administration misread the numbers. He suggested that tax cuts would have been the better route, instead of relying on the Keynesian Theory of economics, which has shown to be NOT the way to go.

Shit, can we afford to help Chrissy Matthews achieve his dream of making this administration a success?

Have a great day...

...that's why they laughed at lil Timmy Geithner when he visited there a few weeks ago...

People flock to the United States because we're a beacon, a shining light upon a hill. They admire our freedoms, our strong stance on behalf of it, our culture, and our willingness to sometimes take the road less traveled and popular to make sure people who are oppressed have the opportunity to experience our ways of life. In my view, democracy is a bit like the sacrifice Christ made for us. He suffered oppression so that we may have the opportunity to experience freedom. Once people get a taste of the freedom Christ and democracy offer, they yearn to experience it uninhibited. Thugocracies, like the ones in Iran, Venezuela, and the type of government Al Qaeda wish to foist upon the rest of us, are aware that once people experience a scintilla of freedom, their power base is less secure. That is why they try their damnedest to illegitimize the US by blaming their failings on us. By illegitimizing the United States, these thugs hope that their populace become disillusioned by what they believe a silly idea democracy is.

Unwittingly giving this distorted view of the US some credibility is the current president, who values the oppressive cultures of nations like Iran and Venezuela, over the cultures of free nations. To him, the reason Chavez and A-jad act as they do is the white man's fault. Sure, white people aren't blameless for the things they've done in the world, but they aren't the reason why Russia is a prime example of a totalitarian form of government. White people aren't the reason Ahmadinejad and the mullahs try to snuff out opposition to their thuggery...and white people aren't the reason Chavez has tried to force his people to look at his ugly mug incessantly. To hear Obama's tirades against his own country, you'd think he'd want to move to these other nations, whose accomplishments he believes far outshadow any contribution the US has made in the global society. Did anyone else have to take a shower after his lackluster Fourth of July speech?

President Obama doesn't mind being dissed, and made to look like a fool. He tried once to poke fun at the Bushites, but it was him that looked foolish. He can't seem to make a speech without taking a swipe at his predecessors. Much was made about President Bush's ability to look into Vladmir Putin's "soul" to see what he is thinking. Obama seems to have carried that to another level, by saying outright that he "trusts Medvedev," so much so, that he's willing to sacrifice our missile systems to mollify the Big Russian Bear. Could that be the reason our dear leader intends to bypass the US Senate and commit the US to nuclear disarmament? Where's all the liberals claiming to love the US Constitution more than you do complaining about this? Of course, that question was rhetorical.

At last count, President Obama has a supermajority in the Senate, so his attempts to bypass the Senate seems illogical. Ed Morrissey believes that Obama intends to concede more to the Russians before the Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty expires at the end of the year. Surprised our new "unitary executive" hadn't done this with Kyoto...since liberals howled when President Bush refused to abide by it, after the US Senate rejected THAT treaty 95-0.

Somewhere, Jimmah Carter is smiling his ass off...because he's finally got a president he can say is worse than him.

Have a great day...

...why haven't we done this sooner?

I am sure that I don't have to tell you about liberals' disdain for showing patriotism for our nation and the sacrifices our brave men and women have made and continue to make. Liberals may carry on about how they were behind President Bush in the aftermath of 9/11, but evidence shows that wasn't the case, based on how they reacted to the many procedures enacted by the Justice Department to round up terror suspects. They cared more for the welfare of the terrorists, claiming their concern lay ensuring the Bushites followed the US Constitution, but constantly ignored arguments that contradicted their statements. They demonized any effort by the US Justice Department as racist and xenophobic, and some went so far to dismiss the US flag as jingoistic and that the flag represented oppression, and Amurica's original sin...slavery. They kept reminding conservatives, who were raked over the coals for questioning their patriotism, that they were just as patriotic, by pointing out the things wrong with Amurica...it was they couldn't find anything right about it (You see, if you constantly tell a child what is wrong with them, and adamantly refuse to praise them...or do so grudgingly, the child will believe you don't love them). Even now US Senator Al Franken (D-MN) poked fun at conservatives by saying they love the US as a toddler loves his mother...that she does nothing wrong.

Throughout the Bush presidency, liberals reminded those of us who love our country, right or wrong, that we were sheep being led to the slaughter by an eeevil, canniving, manipulative imbecile and that we needed to wake up. "Feel free to dissent!" they cried, "tell BushCo you're not gonna take his shit anymore!" Frustrated that their message wasn't getting across, they started intensifying their rhetoric, stupefied that people still loved their country, no matter who was occupying the Oval Office. Liberals from WeHo to Manhattan started competing with each other to see who could make the more absurd claim about Bush's alleged trampling of the US Constitution. Remember when Death of a President was released in 2006, and liberals cheered and celebrated its release saying that the assassination of President Bush in October 2007 (the date given in the documentary) would make the world a better place? They even tried to downplay an assassination attempt on Vice President Dick Cheney during a visit to Bagram Air Base in Kabul, Afghanistan (but all we heard throughout the campaign was how people were afraid that B. Hussein Obama wouldn't last throughout the campaign, let alone become president?).

Dissent is fine and dandy with liberals until one of their own is occupying the White House. All dissent against one of their own is taken personally. Just look at the contempt shown at those who protest against Obamanomics. Liberals were outraged at those who called them names, but had no qualms attempting to marginalize "teabaggers," by focusing on the one weirdo, that happens to be at every protest, or the one person who has a Obama=Hitler sign (compared to a majority of liberal protesters during the Bush 43 years). It seems that liberals are stuck in this time warp and believe we are still living in the time period January 2001-January 2009. It's as if the unemployment numbers reaching 9.5% have nothing to do with Obama's presidency...it's still Bush's fault.

It doesn't bother them that the Obama Administration "misread" the economic numbers, nor does it bother them that the "stimulus" that was supposed to right the economy has only made things worse. Liberals are demanding that conservatives and other opponents of Obama's economic plan, give him time to destroy the economy further (funny how they didn't apply that same logic to Iraq...). And it's not just the economy, it's our foreign policy and our moral standing abroad that's taking a beating as well. That doesn't seem to concern liberals. Well, it's concerning sometimey Republican Colin Powell, who cried:

I’m concerned at the number of programs that are being presented, the bills associated with these programs and the additional government that will be needed to execute them. The right answer is, give me a government that works, keep it as small as possible…. I think one of the cautions that has to be given to the president — and I’ve talked to some of his people about this — is that you can’t have so many things on the table that you can’t absorb it all. And we can’t pay for it all, and I never would have believed that we would have budgets that are running into the multi-trillions of dollars, and we are amassing a huge, huge national debt that, if we don’t pay for in our lifetime, our kids and grandkids and great grandchildren will have to pay for it. [Emphasis mine]

How was that hangover from the ObamaAid, Mr. Powell? Had he listened to Joe the Plumber's question to Obamessiah during the campaign, instead of trying to find a reason to vote for him, he'd have known all about Obama's "plan to fix" (or screw, depending on how you look at it) the economy. Liberals can try to paint the "Tea Parties" as some type of fringe movement, but there is some indication that Obama's big government habits, and other issues, may come back to haunt him in 2010 and 2012. I would also hope that certain Republican US Senators take notice...*cough*...Snowe...*cough*...Collins...*cough*

I think it's good that liberals have finally understood that it's beyond the pale to compare any sitting US president to a madman like Adolf Hitler...even if it took them eight years to realize it...

Have a great day...

...but I often ignore the temper tantrums of Democrats...

While the Right is divided on what to make of Palin's decision to resign the Alaskan governorship on July 26th, liberals are united in thinking that the bitch must be crazy. John Amato, at the blue blog Crooks and Liars, wonders how Palin could handle Al Qaeda, if she couldn't handle a few blue bloggers attacking her and her family incessantly (I do recall conservatives were laughed at for suggesting the same thing about the 2007-2008 Democrat presidential contenders about abandoning a Fox News debate...and they were lauded for their bravado). They are asking how dare she quit on the people of Alaska, if she seeks to run for higher office, but they are overlooking the fact that President Obama did exactly the same thing...and was celebrated for it. It must be hard for Democrats to keep up with the many double standards they invoke.

I reject the reason being peddled by liberals that a scandal has sunk the U.S.S. Palin, for what I believe are obvious reasons. Liberals were giddy with Troopergate, when the investigation found that the governor acted properly. Keith Olbermann could hardly prevent himself from urinating on himself on live TV when the mother of Bristol Palin's baby daddy was arrested for possession of narcotics. With the aid of the media and her political opponents, the Palins have been subjected to 15 ethics complaints, and the cost of having to defend even the most frivolous can be costly. I don't think President Bush was subjected to this type of hate, and they hated that man with the passion of 1000 athlete's foot fungi. Palin Derangement Syndrome Sufferers aren't concerned with how this is affecting her family.

I am sure that I'm the last person the soon-to-be governor would ask for advice, but now that she has been the subject of the weekend news coverage, it would be in Sarahcuda's best interest to play this smart...especially if she desires to seek another public office. Her opponents, both in the Republican and Democratic parties, will salivate at any move that makes her resignation appear selfish. Russ from Winterset has a few ideas for Sarahcuda, should she plan to seek public office in the future. She should use her popularity with the "reich-wing" base as an asset to Republicans who espouse conservative principles...and stay the fuck away from Ron Paul and John McCain.

Some of my friends are saying that Palin would be powerless against Obama in 2012, but as I said sometime ago, barring a Gingrichian chicken-fighting move, like the 1995 government shutdown, which helped an unpopular President Clinton easily overtake Senator Bob Dole in the Election 1996, Obama will have his work cut out for him. The electorate is starting to question whether Obama is the man capable of fixing not only our economic problems, but our national security ones as well. If Palin helps out the GOP during the off-term election in 2010, and the GOP returns the favor, she could be the one to topple Obama from the presidency. I wouldn't write her off too quickly. I'm still an admirer of hers, ever since she came on the national scene last year.

There is one issue that I have with Palin's announcement. During one of the debates during the presidential election of 1980, then President Carter was chided for asking his daughter, Amy, what the most important issue was. In the political world, it isn't wise to ask one's family members about these types of issues and hinge their opinions on them. It appears as if Palin stuck her finger in the wind to see which way the political winds were blowing, and this could be perceived as selfish. Those of us who admire Palin know this isn't selfish, but we don't control the media either, who have not been shy about showing their contempt for a woman whose opinions don't align with their own.

As for kos' suggestion that the GOP are toddlers, I haven't heard any Republican bitch about truths being told about them being tactics of a Democratic Attack Machine. Everytime Democrats are reminded of their scandalous behavior, they dismiss it as an attack by the Republican noise machine. After all, who was blamed for spreading pictures of Obama dressed in Muslim garb? The Right, when in truth, it was the Clinton campaign. Congressman Peter Stark was not a Republican when he uttered on the House floor that then President Bush was amused about US Forces Iraq getting their heads blown off. It wasn't the Republicans who were bitching about having to throw their black separatist pastor under the bus. Republicans are always apologizing for not only their sins, but everyone else's aswell. I think kos needs to get a new prescription.

I hope you all had a happy Fourth of July!

Have a great day...

...but she's just hiding behind her children...

The details are still emerging, but the news of Governor Palin resigning her position as Alaska governor on July 26th is a bit shocking. If the governor is resigning because she's grown tired of the incessant attacks by the media and lefties, I guess I could sympathize with her. However, the governor's been in politics long enough to know that it is a nasty business. In my opinion, no other politician, besides former President Nixon, has been subjected to such distasteful coverage. Charles Krauthammer believes that she's grown tired of the constant attacks on her family, while Juan Williams leads the liberal conspiracy theory charge that a coming scandal is the reason.

Liberals have been trying since John McCain's announcement that she was his running mate, to tie Palin to some sort of scandalous behavior. They have tried since that day to demonize and marginalize her, while ignoring a similar candidate at the top of a ticket they supported. By having to defend herself and her family from attacks across the leftwing-o-sphere, her effectiveness as governor took a decline. Before she ran for Vice President, she enjoyed the highest approval ratings of any governor in the nation. By the time the campaign ended, her ratings dropped into the mid-60s. I am sure they've fallen even more since then.

Democrats and Palin-haters in the Republican Party now have a reason to oppose her in any future political endeavors the governor plans to undertake. They could charge her with abandoning the people of Alaska when the kitchen became hot, and could make the case she'll abandon her responsibilities in a higher office. My advice would be for her to lay low and better prepare herself for a rabid press and leftwing that doesn't view her as a real woman because she opposes their agenda.

The Right is divided in their opinions surrounding Sarahcuda's announcement. Jonah Goldberg believes Palin is blowing it, while others don't know what to make of it yet. Even her rationale for resigning is sounding a little absurd, but hey, if she wants to protect her family, then so be it. I still admire her, ever since I heard her speech at the Republican National Convention last year.

I don't think she's out...that's just my two cents.

Have a great day...and Happy Independence Day!

Dr Asten: Then again, neither is Dana Milbank...

Helen Thomas is mad...nay, pissed at the Obama White House for having a plant at the Obama Show last week. Thomas was so pissed off, she invoked the name of Richard M. Nixon, to set how low the White House had gone to control the news media. Apparently, Thomas was absent on the five years of the Nixon presidency. The press was very adversarial towards Nixon, even while he was Vice President, and he sought to control the seemingly incessant national security leaks coming from the White House, by hiring "Plumbers." In Obama's case, the media made sure it placed Obama on a pedestal, ensuring he was always comfortable. If Thomas were paying attention, she'd have known that to ask Obamessiah hard questions is not only racist, but forces him to be uncomfortable...just ask Joe the Plumber.

Dana Milbank, who used to be Keith Olbermann's go to guy on mocking Republicans, is equally pissed. It would be easy to say that Milbank is expressing selective outrage on this matter, but he isn't. When Jeff Gannon was outed by liberals as a former gay escort and porn star, for asking then President Bush a "softball" question, he was among those who cried bloody murder. Media Matters, and you know how I feel about them, rushed to Nico Pitney's defense by quoting two other bloggers saying the question was "tough" (I think I just got a call from my real estate agent saying someone wants to buy that swampland in the Sahara I was selling...). That a blue blogger would ask Obama a "tough" question is absurd on its face, considering how throughout the campaign Obama acolytes constantly portrayed any "tough" questions directed at Obama was racist. Who does MMFA think we are? Stupid as them?

Apparently they believe we are. As Obama's numbers continue to decline on the economy, because of his lack of a cohesive plan on restoring the economy, and the rising unemployment numbers, the president is looking for a diversion from his fading personality. It has been an okay week for Obama, who ran as a moderate, but is being exposed as the liberal he is. The Supremes overturned a ruling made by Obama's nominee to the Supreme Court, Sonia Sotomayor. This will have no impact on whether Sotomayor will be confirmed or not, even though polls are showing a plurality of the electorate are viewing her unfavorably. It does, however, show how partisan the president and outdated affirmative action are.

It is good that people are starting to see that they were bamboozled into believeing that the change Obama pledged was the same change they felt was needed in this nation. Hopefully, nothing will surge Obama's approval numbers, like Newt Gingrich's chicken-fight with President Clinton that not only made his lagging numbers start to surge, but allowed him a second term.

Are people still gonna demonize the good doctah for not giving Obama time to sail the US down the river?

Have a great day...

...so, why should you?

From Obama's Inaugural Address on January 20, 2009:

We will not apologize for our way of life nor will we waver in its defense. And for those who seek to advance their aims by inducing terror and slaughtering innocents, we say to you now that, "Our spirit is stronger and cannot be broken. You cannot outlast us, and we will defeat you."

...

To those leaders around the globe who seek to sow conflict or blame their society's ills on the West, know that your people will judge you on what you can build, not what you destroy.

And now for the money quote...

To those who cling to power through corruption and deceit and the silencing of dissent, know that you are on the wrong side of history, but that we will extend a hand if you are willing to unclench your fist.

Heh, it's becoming clearer to me now. Obama was never interested in condemning the atrocities in Iran, because he wanted to talk to the mullahs at any cost. Yeah, I understand this idea that we can't isolate our enemies forever, that we must at times, offer them the chance to become our friends. Unlike Obama, and his acolytes, this will only work if both parties are willing to become friendly. The Iranian government is not willing to become Amurica's ally, but Obama's damned determined to extend to them legitimacy anyway...in spite of what they have shown about their feelings about democracy. That's why he cautioned about inserting himself into the protests, instead of condemning it like people who stand for freedom would. His acolytes thought this approach showed us what an intelligent president would do (he even got at least one Right-leaning blogger on MySpace to take a sip of Obama-Aid), I was less impressed and saw it as another episode of President Pantywaist.

One would think with all the caution the president exercised on the Iran issue, that he'd show consistency across the board (Now when exactly has the current president BEEN consistent?). Well, it seems a "coup" has occurred in Honduras because the sitting president violated the country's constitution by attempting to repeal the president's term limits. The country's supreme court ruled this Chavez-style power grab was unconstitutional, yet Manuel Zelayda, the former Honduran president went for it anyway, by firing the head of the military. The White House, not wanting to be called weak by "real" leaders like Fidel Castro, Daniel Ortega, and Hugo Chavez, quickly called for Zelayda's restoration, and denounced removal of Mr. Zelayda.

On second thought, Obama has shown consistency in both the Iranian protests and on Honduras, by siding with oppression over freedom (when, exactly, has it been in a liberal's best interest to side with oppressors over freedom?). I perused two leftie blogs, Daily Kos and Crooks and Liars, and neither one discussed Obama's hypocrisy on quickly condemning the impeachment/coup that occurred in Honduras. Conservatives shouldn't be surprised at Obama's foreign policy "change we can believe in." He has shown that we should speak softly to our enemies, for fear of offending them, while shitting on our allies...because they deserve tough talk (And this is the man, Obamists tell you, is sooooo much smarter than his 43 predecessors...). There is no explanation for supporting a man who wanted to institute Chavez-style policies in his country, when his people were dead set against it.

Obviously, President Pantywaist hasn't been dissed enough yet. During his Apology Tour I and II, where he handed out all types of prizes to Amurica's enemies for standing tall during the repressive Bush 43 years, he was rebuffed by each and every petrodictator he comforted. His behavior reminds me of the stories my parents used to tell me about not going down the same paths they took. They told me to look at their example on matters where their decisions caused hardships, and take another path. Obama has disregarded this sage advice time and time again, and it's only been his conservative critics who've called him out on it. I don't understand liberals, who claim they're smarter than the average bear, always fall for the same shit time and time again on matters like this. Instead, they applaud him for standing up to Benjamin Netanyahu.

So, can I now be applauded for my political prowess for pointing out Obama's cynical approach to freedom for all in the world?

Have a great day...