Archive for the ‘Incumbent Scandals’ Category

VDH: On the Horizon

Monday, December 28th, 2009

Victor Davis Hanson’s predictions for 2010. I’m particularly fond of items #2 and #3:

2) Either shortly or soon next year, Homeland Security Secretary Napolitano will resign. I don’t see how the nation’s point woman on domestic terrorism can claim that the system worked like “clockwork,” when the Nigerian terrorist’s own father contacted American authorities long ago to warn us about the proclivities of his own son, who came within seconds of blowing apart a transcontinental jet. The system worked only at the 11th hour thanks to a courageous Dutch tourist who took matters into his hands.

3) I think the overseas bowing, apologizing, and kowtowing will stop in 2010—it brought no tangible results. Indeed, Obama is one bow away from global caricature and humiliation. And when one examines the recent behavior of Iran, Russia, Venezuela, or Syria, one concludes that they all think they can make favorable readjustments in regional landscapes and power relationships in 2010. Obama’s advisors will try to stop his natural inclinations to apologize, and I think will be successful—given the gathering storm clouds of 2010.

Lessons learned? Let us hope so.

David Bugnon

Wednesday, September 30th, 2009

Hannah Giles, wielding a Husqvarna and takin’ care o’ business…

From here (hat tip to The Camp of the Saints).

“Mr. Sullivan is Being Treated Differently From Others…”

Sunday, September 13th, 2009

PowerLine brings us (along with many, many other sources) the sordid tale of Andrew Sullivan’s non-troubles with the long arm of the law…

Sullivan was caught smoking marijuana in a National Park and was prosecuted, consistent with the usual policy of the U.S. Attorney for the District of Massachusetts. But Sullivan’s pull with the Obama administration got him a sweetheart deal: the U.S. Attorney decided to drop the charges, even though there evidently is no doubt about Sullivan’s guilt. The issue here isn’t whether marijuana possession should be illegal, or should be prosecuted. It is illegal, and the U.S. Attorney in Massachusetts does routinely prosecute such cases. But not Sullivan: Barack Obama and Eric Holder paid him off for his slavish devotion.

The U.S. Attorney’s action in dismissing the case against Sullivan was so extraordinary that it prompted this stinging rebuke by United States Magistrate Judge Robert Collings, who presided over the case:

When the case was called, the Court expressed its concern that a dismissal would result in persons in similar situations being treated unequally before the law…
In the Court’s view, in seeking leave to dismiss the charge against Mr. Sullivan, the United States Attorney is not being faithful to a cardinal principle of our legal system, i.e., that all persons stand equal before the law and are to be treated equally in a court of justice once judicial processes are invoked. It is quite apparent that Mr. Sullivan is being treated differently from others who have been charged with the same crime in similar circumstances. …

In short, the Court sees no legitimate reason why Mr. Sullivan should be treated differently, or why the Violation Notice issued to him should be dismissed. The only reasons given for the dismissal flout the bedrock principle of our legal system that all persons stand equal before the law.

I’ll just re-state my marijuana position one more time right now, because I know there are better-than-even odds that I’ll have to say it before we move on. The longest threads at The Blog That Nobody Reads, after all, by far-and-away are the ones that extend beneath the pot posts. And I just don’t get that. It’s a law about controlled substances, one that arguably doesn’t make much sense…but which controlled-substance laws are immune from such an argument? There’s a law. Some folks like the law, some folks don’t, but if you break it then everything’s cool. Until you get caught. Then not.

Some folks think the fact that marijuana is illegal, is some kind of special issue, some notable encroachment upon our freedoms…outside of the blatant violation against the Tenth Amendment. They seem to think there’s some iron-clad human right to smoke whatever you want. I think they’re evolving into liberals and don’t realize they’re evolving into liberals — they’ve tumbled down to the fifth terrace of liberalism. True conservative principles say, if you think you should have a right to do something and your locality prohibits you from doing it — you move. You don’t riot, you don’t claim some “human right” you just pulled out of your ass, you don’t go claiming the Founding Fathers had this vision that you should be entitled to do what you want but they were so distracted by the lack of air conditioning in August of 1787 that they forgot to scribble it down.

Having said all that, my position is this: The federal government has absolutely no authority whatsoever to be prosecuting these cases. None. In fact, the Constitution clearly says they are prohibited from having anything whatsoever to do with drug laws, except for cases in which a drug-related crime was committed across state lines.

Within the states, the local populace can do whatever it wants. I don’t care. Force people to smoke pot every day. Cut off hands if people are caught smoking it. Discriminate. Let Catholics smoke pot but prohibit Protestants and Muslims from partaking in the evil weed…or vice-versa. Let men smoke pot, but not women, unless the women are topless while they’re smoking it, but not if they’re wearing tassles, unless it’s a Tuesday. Pass out free joints with the welfare checks twice a month. I. Don’t. Care.

Of course if the punishment was stocks in the town square, I’d be thrilled. Not because I want to see pot smoking punished. I just want to see the stocks brought back; I think they would represent a huge step forward in implementing my vision of what a civilized society really is. But pot? In my little village, I’d vote to keep it illegal. The next town down the road can do whatever it wants. It’s a local issue, and there’s absolutely no reason in the world to make it anything other than a local issue.

If there’s a court decision somewhere that finds differently, that decision is wrong.

Regarding the special treatment of Mr. Sullivan? Let us presume, perhaps recklessly, that this stops somewhere short of the top. Some US/DOJ lackey wanted to please his superiors, Holder and Obama knew nothing about it. Presume that, then investigate. Vigorously.

If “mistakes were made,” then heads should roll. The day has come to go spend some more time with your family. This administration, quite frankly, should be looking for some ways to renew its commitment to us that it will be running a transparent, ethical, and equitable form of government. It has been providing lots of compelling evidence lately to indicate this is not the case, and if the administration cannot take the initiative to figure that out for itself then it has fallen woefully short of possessing the intellectual acumen we were promised last fall it would be bringing.

Van Jones Aftermath

Tuesday, September 8th, 2009

All is as expected: The FARK kids can’t put together a coherent thought about it. Arianna Huffington, desperate to be credited with assembling tomorrow’s most popular left-wing talking point, has cleverly blended together the two old standby ingredients whining and gloating. It will probably work.

The Washington Times wants to know how things went this far without more involvement from our mainstream press. Good question.

Obama is, of course, shocked — shocked! — to learn of Van Jones’ extremist views. But not so fast, says the Wall Street Journal opinion page.

Mr. Jones was a senior fellow at the Center for American Progress, which was established, funded and celebrated as the new intellectual vanguard of the Democratic Party. The center’s president is John Podesta, who was co-chair of Mr. Obama’s transition team and thus played a major role in recommending appointees throughout the Administration. The ascent of Mr. Jones within the liberal intelligentsia shows how much the Democratic Party has moved left since its “New Democrat” triangulation of the Clinton years.

Mr. Jones’s incendiary comments about Republicans and his now famous association with a statement blaming the U.S. for 9/11 had to have been known in some White House precincts. He was praised and sponsored by Valerie Jarrett, who is one of the two or three most powerful White House aides and is a long-time personal friend of the President.

Our guess is that Mr. Jones landed in the White House precisely because his job didn’t require Senate confirmation, which would have subjected him to more scrutiny. This is also no doubt a reason that Mr. Obama has consolidated so much of his Administration’s governing authority inside the White House under various “czars.”

This gets into a question I have long had about the “czars.” My question doesn’t have to do with the obvious lack of congressional oversight, or what-would-we-find-out if the czars did have to appear before a Senate panel and win confirmation.

My question is, instead: Why does the org chart have to look this way?

Take a look at the way things have to be, as President Obama is first sworn in. We have a cabinet that evolves over time, acquiring new seats much more often than it loses any, and is currently at fifteen plus seven cabinet-level officers. If President Obama has any intention of trimming these down, I’ve yet to hear about it. Then, to this, we add the czars. The definition of a “czar” is not necessarily a measurable thing, so it will be a subjective matter to determine how many such posts Obama has created. CNN says “nearly thirty” and Fox News reports “nearly three dozen.”

Wow, that’s nearly sixty really smart people helping Obama make decisions about things.

Obama doesn’t need help making decisions about things, though. This is a guy who thinks nothing of announcing the police acted “stupidly” in responding to an entirely local incident, in the same breath as admitting He is missing the facts required to decide such a thing. I’ve been listening to Him for three years now, and I’ve not yet once heard Him say He knows something because of something someone else pointed out to Him. Not unless you count that racist asshole preacher of His that He doesn’t want me to think about anymore.

Apart from Rev. Wright, there’s been absolutely nobody. Not His sainted grandmother, not Michelle, not Rahm, not “Nobody Messes With Joe” Biden, not one single soul has told President Obama something Obama felt was worth using in a decision Obama had to make. Not once!

So why does our President need fifty-eight people to help Him make decisions? He has yet to demonstrate His need for even one. There’s no leadership-bandwidth to be conserved here. If Obama was in my kitchen when I was opening a box of Cheerios or unclogging my garbage disposal, He’d have plenty of comments about all the mistakes I’d be making, and how I should be doing it. And He’d tell me all about it without ever whipping out His cell phone and using a lifeline. He’d correct me in the middle of the most meaningless and arcane tasks, fully confident in His own glorious advice, be His advice solicited or not, and He’d do it without breaking a sweat.

The only answer I can see, is that the fifty-something butts in the chairs represent solutions in search of a problem. It must be a classic Washington story of graft. They are fifty-something people who are owed something.

Van Jones reflects badly on the country, in a darkly humorous way. We Americans are a real funny duck, you know. We’re constantly bitching and moaning about our corrupt officials ripping us off, and when we find out one guy profits from a decision and another guy makes a decision, and they happen to know each other, we screech. Perhaps that’s healthy. But every single election is the event by which we “finally take our house back from these crooks,” and just a heartbeat later we find cronies paying each other off out of our tax coffers, nothing’s changed…and we still tolerate it.

So here’s an idea. Don’t go looking for a replacement for Van Jones. Instead, get rid of a whole bunch of czars. Then go after the cabinet. Make it look like George Washington’s, with just four posts. Obama wants to restore His approval ratings; that would do it.

But of course He won’t do that.

Van Jones is Down

Saturday, September 5th, 2009

AP, short and sweet:

WASHINGTON — Obama aide Van Jones resigns as environmental adviser amid controversy over past statements.

Poor Obama. If this keeps up, He’ll have to find someone, somewhere, who is not a racist neo-communist antisemitic tax-cheating Truther asshole. And that, I guess, would put Him in a helluva spot.

The More We Owe, The Wealthier We Are

Saturday, September 5th, 2009

The video is over a year old by now, but it’s an interesting object lesson.

It’s exactly what I was writing about before. Up is down, wet is dry, black is white and cold is hot…if you question any of it it means you’re a big ol’ dummy. Do you have a Masters Degree? Do you have a Doctorate? Did you graduate from a college (of which I’d approve)? If no to any of these, then you’re too boneheaded to have the conversation.

One of my fondest ways to respond is to innocently inquire what is the minimal level of education at which one could start to form an opinion about the pertinent concepts. More debt makes you wealthier? If anyone wants to proffer that a Masters Degree level of education somehow puts a new perspective on that, I’m all ears. Meanwhile, I’m gonna nail that one down at somewhere between third & fourth grades, elementary school. Simple multiplication with fractions involved.

Hat tip: Michelle, on a blurb from Neal Boortz’ reading assignments.

Thing I Know #173. I often become aware of people coercing those around them to support a certain position, citing educational credentials held by themselves, or some prominent figure in the disagreement. I don’t believe these people maintain the fascination in the topic they imply they have. I’ve noticed the slightest bit of skepticism causes them to change the subject.

Thing I Know #183. When an education has given you the ability to dismiss ideas more quickly, it’s not really an education.

Van Jones’ CD Highlights

Saturday, September 5th, 2009

I’m going through Malkin’s new book and one thought keeps reverberating off the walls of the sound chamber that exists between my ears rather than within them. And that one thought is this: It is getting really, really hard to dredge up nasty feelings about Sarah Palin’s clothes.

Meanwhile, Gateway Pundit found, via Verum Serum, a piece of fascinating insight into Van Jones, who is the very latest czar to be “nominated” to an Obama Administration post.

When one listens critically to propaganda, it is a simple matter to tell if it has been paid-fer. Some of the outrage against the War on Terror is genuine, true enough; but most of it is not. Most of it is phony, most of it is funded.

And the people who fund anti-War-on-Terror propaganda, are the same ones who fund the “Oh no, we can’t drill here, why that’ll mess things up for the Caribou and the adorable penguins.” Meanwhile there’s an ugly anti-semitic undertone permeating throughout all of it.

We really don’t have any direct way of stopping a czar’s “appointment.” For all this lofty rhetoric so regularly dispensed by our leftist politicians about representing “The People,” about all The People can do to block such obviously mistaken (or wicked) maneuvers such as this, is with an outpouring of rage. That’s the only recourse available to Them.

Hope it works this time…

Questions For Nancy

Saturday, August 29th, 2009

Peter Krisanow, writing in National Review Online and apparently having some fun doing it:

Since the mainstream press seem unable to figure out what questions to pose to Speaker Pelosi concerning her claim — discredited by the recently released IG’s report — that the CIA never told her about waterboarding in fall 2002, below are a just a few questions to help the press get started:

1. Given that you were aware of the conduct for which CIA interrogators are now being investigated and possibly prosecuted, and you at least tacitly approved of such conduct, will you ask President Obama to pardon the interrogators?

2. Since you were aware of what the CIA interrogators were doing yet remained silent, are you at all complicit in their conduct?

And there’s more.

We have quite a few folks in charge right now who are really running things and seem to be among the last to figure out they’re really running things. They seem, like Speaker San Fran Nan, to be stuck in campaign mode. You can tell your adoring fans whatever crap you think will fly with ’em, when you’re in campaign mode. Running things though…that’s just a little different.

Or it’s supposed to be.

But, you know…liberals enjoy some natural advantages in getting away with their bullshit. That’s just the way it is.

Where’s the Outrage

Saturday, August 29th, 2009

Hans von Spakovsky, writing in the National Review Online.

Given the apparent political motivations behind so many of the recent decisions at the Department of Justice (DOJ) — from the dismissal of the voter-intimidation case against the New Black Panther Party to the re-investigation of CIA interrogators after DOJ prosecutors had already reviewed the matter and decided there was no reason for further criminal prosecution — the latest news about the dropping of the investigation against New Mexico governor Bill Richardson, Obama’s former nominee to be commerce secretary, raises a lot of questions. The Associated Press report cites a DOJ source saying that the investigation of pay-to-play allegations involving one of the governor’s largest political donors “was killed in Washington” by top DOJ officials.

For anyone familiar with internal Justice Department procedures, this is particularly suspicious. The DOJ has a manual called “Federal Prosecution of Election Offenses” (I helped edit the latest edition when I was at Justice) that sets out the rules and procedures for U.S. attorneys when they are investigating these types of public-corruption cases. It is the U.S. attorney in New Mexico who would normally make the final call on a local public-corruption case, not “top Justice Department officials” in Washington. The DOJ manual sets out the consultation rules for U.S. attorneys, who are required to “consult” with the Public Integrity Section of the Criminal Division in Washington. But only consultation is required; the Public Integrity Section does not make the final decision on whether an investigation should go forward. (Attorney General Eric Holder should not have forgotten this, since Public Integrity was the first place he worked at Justice.) So if the AP is correct in reporting that “top” officials in Washington killed the investigation, then political appointees within the department did not follow normal DOJ procedures.

There is a crude sort of Pascal’s Wager inspiring this ageless double-standard. Conservatives and liberals may be telling us the truth, they may be lying to us, or they may be getting duped, passing along bad information they’ve been duped to believe when they shouldn’t, as they get duped with us. I think, in spite of the rhetoric, most people are open to all six of these possibilities.

When conservatives and liberals tell us the truth and we choose to believe it, we’re relying on our rational thinking, so are they, and everything is humming along as it should.

But when conservatives lie to us about something, or choose to get duped by something and pass on their weakness to us by telling us untrue things and inviting us to get duped along with them, they manipulate us in this way because of our darker human instincts. Something about “fear.” Suspicion, mistrust, jealousy, bigotry, paranoia.

When liberals lie to us about something and we choose to believe it, or when the liberals get duped by something and pass along their failings by inviting us to be similarly duped…at least our intentions are noble. We can at least look ourselves in the mirror and tell ourselves that.

Now, the conservative mindset doesn’t put a lot of stock in that. To a true conservative, if you make the wrong decision, it really doesn’t matter a tinker’s damn why you made it. You got snookered, or you chose not to believe someone who was telling you the truth because you hated them, or you rolled dice. Who really cares? The outcome is the same: You made the wrong decision, and the consequences are going to have to be somehow sustained. They are not made kinder or gentler because of your good intentions.

This is why liberalism enjoys a mutual hospitality with those who make decisions in service of a social exercise, rather than an intellectual one. To a liberal, the final word is always about how good of a person you are made to appear.

And so, to hard-left socialist governments across the world and throughout modern human history, double-standards like this are natural, and they’re tolerated. They are but a means to an end. And it’s viewed that way both by the leftism-inclined ordinary folks, as well as by the leftism-inclined elected and appointed power-brokers, king-makers and puppet-masters.

That’s why there’s no outrage. Leftist politics and politicos get a pass.

Thing I Know #230. We’d call them “rationalists” if they thought things through rationally; that’s why they’re called “socialists.”

The Trouble With Ted

Tuesday, August 25th, 2009

Cassy unloads, and it couldn’t have happened to a nicer fella…

[H]e’s using his final days to try and maintain his lifelong grip on the power and authority he’s enjoyed his entire life. The family that considers themselves royalty is surely above such things as voters determining who takes his seat, or abiding by laws. And now, the man who murdered Mary Jo Kopechne has sunk to yet another low. In 2004, Kennedy had the Massachusetts succession law upended when John Kerry was running for president, fearful that Republican Governor Mitt Romney would fill Kerry’s seat with — believe it or not! — a Republican. And now that there’s a Democratic governor, he wants that succession law reinstated, probably to ensure that another Kennedy gets his seat.

Kennedy wants the Legislature to upend the succession law it passed in 2004, when – at his urging – it stripped away the governor’s longstanding power to temporarily fill a Senate vacancy. Back then, John Kerry was a presidential candidate and Republican Mitt Romney was governor; Kennedy lobbied state Democrats to change the law so that Romney couldn’t name Kerry’s successor.

They followed his advice with gusto. When the final vote took place, the Boston Globe reported, “hooting and hollering broke out on the usually staid House floor,’’ and House Speaker Thomas Finneran acknowledged candidly: “It’s a political deal. It’s very raw politics.’’

It still is. Now that Massachusetts has a Democratic governor, Kennedy is lobbying to restore the gubernatorial power to name an interim appointee. That would guarantee Democrats in Washington two reliable Senate votes from Massachusetts, even if Kennedy isn’t there to cast one of them.

Kennedy has already been out of the Senate for the most part for the last 15 months due to his battle with brain cancer. He’s missed most of the votes in the Senate anyways; if he’s so concerned about the people of Massachusetts having two voices represent them in the Senate, then he should resign, and let the people choose who fills that seat. The Kennedy family has already claimed the seat as their own. And while Massachusetts voters idealize the Kennedy family as their version of “Camelot”, they are in reality far from it and our Founding Fathers surely would not want this kind of corruption taking place.

Axelrod’s Big Problem

Thursday, August 20th, 2009

Hugh Hewitt points out something about a Bloomberg story about Obama’s friend.

I wasn’t aware of this rivalry about influencing The Holy One, between Axelrod and Rev. Jeremiah Wright. That would be a fruitful thing to follow, I think; not like we can depend on the media to tell us anything about it, other than the Officer Barbrady “Move Along Nothing To See Here.” So too with the Axelrod scandal. What’s there to say?

Well, what would we be told about it if Axelrod was a Republican.

What a year. It’s almost as if your Preferred Diety or cosmic kismet said to Itself “Hey, the mortals have developed blogs, but the blogs lack a purpose; better make some stuff happen give the blogs a purpose, so the mortals remember why they have ’em.”

Why Palin Quit

Thursday, July 9th, 2009

Very well written. It belabors the obvious, and although I suppose there are some people who still need to be told, if they have the need they probably can’t be told. Also, it relies on unnamed “confidants,” although the reason for that is fairly obvious as well.

This is becoming a rather silly month news-wise, isn’t it? Everything’s either “Michael Jackson is still dead” or “Why Palin Quit.”

Anyway, on with the excerpts…

Contrary to most reports, her decision had been in the works for months, accelerating recently as it became clear that controversies and endless ethics investigations were threatening to overshadow her legislative agenda. “Attacks inside Alaska and largely invisible to the national media had paralyzed her administration,” someone close to the governor told me. “She was fully aware she would be branded a ‘quitter.’ She did not want to disappoint her constituents, but she was no longer able to do the job she had been elected to do. Essentially, the taxpayers were paying for Sarah to go to work every day and defend herself.”

This situation developed because Alaska’s transparency laws allow anyone to file Freedom of Information Act requests. While normally useful, in the hands of political opponents FOIA requests can become a means to bog down a target in a bureaucratic quagmire, thanks to the need to comb through records and respond by a strict timetable. Similarly, ethics investigations are easily triggered and can drag on for months even if the initial complaint is flimsy. Since Ms. Palin returned to Alaska after the 2008 campaign, some 150 FOIA requests have been filed and her office has been targeted for investigation by everyone from the FBI to the Alaska legislature. Most have centered on Ms. Palin’s use of government resources, and to date have turned up little save for a few state trips that she agreed to reimburse the state for because her children had accompanied her. In the process, though, she accumulated $500,000 in legal fees in just the last nine months, and knew the bill would grow ever larger in the future.

The question for Palin-phobes, at least those who successfully pass off the patina of being open to an opposing reasonable argument, then becomes one of: If you were the Governor of Alaska, what percentage of your time could you spend day-to-day in this defensive posture before you figured out the situation was unworkable and something had to change? If Palin’s decision says something so derogatory about her character, her resolve, her determination to fulfill a responsibility, her basic drive, then how high is that percentage, minute to minute? Fifty? Sixty? Eighty?

Some of the critics not only fail to remain open to opposing reasonable arguments, but they remain locked into the wishful thinking that pronounces SCANDAL! Most of those types are busily filling in the details. The question for them is somewhat different: What is this scandal? Are you remembering to take into account that it is now Thursday, nearly a week after the announcement, and the scandal has yet to bubble over? It has remained hidden beneath the most frothy and energized scandal-search, perhaps in this country’s history…lawyers, reporters, tabloid hacks, photographers tipping over trash cans in Juneau. They had ten weeks before the election, many months since then, and they missed whatever it is. Either the details eluded them or they didn’t give the details the same weight the Governor did. Once you fill in the nooks and crannies of that germinating theory, will it capably address all these dichotomies?

She Left to Get Rid of the John McCains

Saturday, July 4th, 2009

…or, to be more precise about it, the Meghan McCains. You know the type. The BUT type. “I really, really want to see the Republicans win…BUT…” And then there comes a “I wish Republicans would,” followed by something you wouldn’t say unless you wanted the democrats to win. Sensible “gun safety” laws, homosexuals getting married and adopting kids, global warming, helping people who just want to make a higher minimum wage, Wall Street greed has to be checked — or it’s high time that dimwit Sarah Palin got her ass home to take care of all these retarded kids she keeps squirting out.

There is another type that’s been itching for Sarah Palin to go home. These are the democrats who say they are not itching for Sarah Palin to go home. “Please, please, oh please, run her and make sure she debates Obama.” If & when Palin comes rebounding back into the national scene, they’ll sneer, and squint, and chortle, and exclaim “you’re digging HER up again??” And start peddling like crazy the talking point that Palin’s an idiot but she’s the best the GOP can do. Always make desperation look like the other guy’s problem.

...And Don't Change a ThingThey want her to debate the Teleprompter genius Obama. Want to be there for it. Want to see the Holy Man squish her like a bug. This is a meme that was repeated over and over again. I wonder how they think the Palin/Biden debate went? They must not think Biden won, after all, because if Biden drank her milkshake at that one then they’re lusting after seeing something for the first time that they’ve already seen before. That doesn’t make any sense at all. So this is a confession that Palin won the debate, or at least, it was a draw…or it’s certainly reasonable for someone else to see that debate as a draw. You’d have to be hoping Obama can do something in a debate that Biden can’t do.

Joe Biden. Even now, he remains the best rebuke against liberal talking points against Palin. Just mutter “oh yeah it’s just swell we got that super genius Biden in the job instead of her, huh?” Roll your eyes and walk away.

But what of the John McCain type Republicans, the ones that are so anxious to assume a left-wing position on things to show how reasonable and moderate they are? If Palin tries this Monty-Python-run-away approach now, and comes back on the scene in a year or two, couldn’t they take on the “Oh I wish she’d just go away for good” thing? That would look very silly. That, in my mind, is the big difference between then and now. That has a very good chance at being the reason she did what she did yesterday.

In fact, if it turns out this really is some kind of a reckless political gamble, I offer that it isn’t really that reckless and it really isn’t even a gamble. Palin retires for three months, or six, or an entire year, into a life of a private citizen…in 2010 she stumps for this Senator or that one, for this Congressman or that one. Fade from view again, and then she’s interested in becoming President. She’s wearing some albatross around her neck then? I’m having trouble seeing it. If there really is a scandal here, of course, that would change everything.

But if there is no scandal, then at that time she’ll just look like she left ’em wanting more. Because that’s exactly what will have happened.

We’re about to head out of town and I don’t know about innerwebtubes access at our hotel, so presuming this is the last update for awhile — To Scandal, Or Not To Scandal, That Is The Question. If something hasn’t blown up by Monday, it’s not going to blow up for a long time or there’s nothing to blow up. Certainly if things stay clean by the time she leaves on the 25th, it’ll be highly unlikely for her to ever be tainted. Just look at all the attempts made already.

So for the immediate duration, the sidebar graphic remains unchanged…especially the “don’t change a thing” part of it. She’s the last, best hope for the country to regain some lost common-sense bearings, and as far as hopes go, she’s pretty far from a ramshackle, half-assed one. She has been, and remains today, quite a decent one.

You can tell this from the left-winger comments. They’ve been a lot more anxious, a lot more desperate, to get their talking points out there…certainly compared to Palin-backers like us. Examine the typical mixed-company (conservatives and libs) thread about Palin’s announcement; by the time things quiet down again, for every comment from a reasonable person there’s ninety-nine more comments from some weasely liberal ankle-biters. And not 99 ankle-biters either. Something like a dozen of ’em, typing in crap and hitting “Post” over and over again. It’s the same story different day: They have to get the first word, they have to have the last word, they have to have all other words in between. Nothing less will make their wrong-headed policies look appealing to anyone, and they know it.

Of course, some of this is trickery on my part, since I’ve been pretending not to know things I know. Got a call from Palin’s press secretary yesterday evening, in response to a private e-mail I sent the Governor. It was about yet another theory, one not yet explored by anyone. Bulls-eye, first try! And since this is The Blog That Nobody Reads, there is no damage involved in spilling the beans here.

I was right. Sarah Palin never was the Governor of Alaska in the first place.

It was Bristol. It’s true. And the entire Palin family, from what was relayed to me last night, is quite mystified it’s taken this long for anyone to figure it out.

Drill Baby Drill

Thursday, July 2nd, 2009

D’JEver Notice? XXX

Thursday, June 25th, 2009

South Carolina Gov. Mark Sanford is obviously a weasel and that’s being charitable. Michelle Malkin has an excellent essay on why that is so, if you need it. The man’s character is decidedly weak.

This is going to be very damaging to Republicans, as if Republicans could manage to be damaged any further. Of course, if we are to be sitting in decision of which political party is more conducive to the building of strong character within the individuals who are a part of it — which would be profoundly stupid — there are many surplus bits of evidence being ignored far and wide. I’m speaking of the three fundamental missing essentials: Republican politicians who have strong character, democrat politicians who have weak character, and, where & when you can find them, democrat politicians who have strong character.

We seem to have settled into this idea that character matters in evaluating a public servant who is conservative; it does not matter in evaluating a public servant who is “progressive,” meaning liberal. I do not mean by this that this is the prevailing viewpoint of our culture. I do not mean by this that this is what is suggested by the sound bites that bombard us morning, noon and night.

What I mean by this is that it shows up in the decisions we make. Go on, name a progressive figure who was taken down because of extramarital indiscretions. Forget “taken down” as in turned into sun-baked road kill, like a Republican. I mean taken-down, as in, taken down a peg. John Edwards? Nope. He was dormant, slumbering, between-cycles, when it all blew up. Some folks called him dirty names. That doesn’t mean he’s finished. That’s not a Larry Craig or a John Ensign or a Mark Sanford situation at all. Who else?

Personal-principles-wise, they are decidedly standard-less.

The enduring advantage this situation offers to the progressive side, cannot be overstated. Every personal peccadillo is a steep headwind for the conservatives, while like the sleekest of nautical or air craft the liberal side just slices right through it. Every personal foible. Especially the ones that have to do with exaggerated self-importance…selfishness…narcissism.

Whatever their leanings, these are all politicians, after all.

And so it has come to this. A Republican politician possessing the character shortcomings of a politician, is a scandal. A liberal politician possessing the character shortcomings of a politician, is an “oh well.” Like a sunset. Something we expect to see.

Boxer Refuses to Apologize

Tuesday, June 23rd, 2009

Barbara Boxer, one of my two hardcore-lefty aging hippie female senators, will not be apologizing for making a public spectacle out of a Brigadier General as retribution against him for following well-established military protocol.

Aside from a briefly worded statement about a “friendly” conversation she had with Brig. Gen. Michael Walsh after dressing him down for calling her “ma’am,” Boxer remained silent Friday in the face of growing calls for her to apologize.

“Senator Boxer spoke with General Walsh yesterday and he said he was fine with her comments at the hearing,” Boxer spokesman Zachary Coile said in a statement sent Friday to

“It was a very friendly conversation and they reiterated their respect for each other and how much they look forward to working together,” he said.
The Pentagon refused to jump into the fray Friday.

“The matter was between the two and we have nothing to add,” Pentagon spokeswoman Eileen Lainez said in a statement to

The Veterans of Foreign Wars supported both Boxer and Walsh and downplayed the exchange.

“The general is 100 percent correct in responding to members of Congress with ‘Sir’ or ‘Ma’am.’ The senator, on the other hand, is also correct, though probably everyone now agrees that this should have been handled differently, if at all,” the group said in a statement.

“There are far more important issues facing America — from national security to the proper care and treatment of veterans, military service member and their families — and this difference of opinion in salutations is not one of them.”

Because if this had any consequences more meaningful than bottom-layer rabble like us simply jawing about it, it would be unprecedented. Seriously unprecedented. A left-winger getting in real trouble for just plain shitty behavior. That, you will notice, doesn’t happen. No, losing a pound or two of ass flesh for lying, cheating on your spouse, or acting like a dick to someone who plainly deserves better…that only happens to non-liberals.

In fact, I have an additional observation I think is somewhat interesting: According to the rule summarized above, the country herself is non-liberal. “Arrogant, dismissive, derisive”; remember that? Alienating our allies. Thinking we’re all that & a bag o’ chips, living in our little plastic-bubble world, being ignorant, not being sufficiently concerned with the challenges faced in other nations, not being sufficiently concerned with the reservations they have about what we do, not stopping everything and asking their permission for things…et cetera, et cetera, et cetera. There was supposed to be a day of reckoning coming for all that, and maybe it’s here.

But aging liberal senators get a pass. They worked hard for their titles. They get to be arrogant and everyone else better get used to it. Senators, I guess, aren’t really Americans. Or if they are, then nobody looks to anyone in the Senate to represent America. The country is to start acting more humble, right away, starting with…I guess…our, uh, janitors or something? Bank executives maybe? Not our national politicians. Their privilege of obscene anti-Jeffersonian aristocracy and the accompanying douchebag dripping snobbery it brings with it, have only just begun.

Up there, anyway. In the Senate…er, uh…ma’am-tower or whatever.

Five out of Six Disagree…

Thursday, June 18th, 2009

…with your Justice Department.

Earlier this month, the U.S. Department of Justice said the State of Georgia cannot check driver’s licenses and Social Security numbers to verify the citizenship of prospective voters. The concern was that Georgia’s policy was discriminatory toward minority voters. According to a FOX News/Opinion Dynamics poll released Friday, most Americans disagree with the Justice Department ruling.

When it comes to showing photo identification at a polling place before voting, 83 percent of Americans say they think it is a good idea to require it, because it helps avoid fraud. Only 15 percent of Americans agree with the Justice Department that such a policy is a bad idea.

And supposedly, our “democracy” was coming to a bitter end because George W. Bush thought it would be a good idea to find out what “ordinary Americans” (read that as: terrorists in Damascus or Beirut who’d never set foot on American soil in their miserable little lives) had on their little minds when they were calling up bin Laden’s satellite phone. Yeah. Tell me another.

Now we’re manufacturing voters — even worse, we’re closing our eyes while others so manufacture. Voters say who’s going to be in the government…government says which voters get to vote, and how many times they can vote. Move along folks, there’s nothing to see here.

Oh yeah, only one out of six of you want to move on. Aw well. Vee haff vays uv making you move on.

Week Ending June 12, 2009

Saturday, June 13th, 2009

Do you realize what an incredible week this has been? I’m ready to go ahead and call it right now: In the months and years ahead, when Republicans and democrats try to figure out when the national scene all turned around, there will be bipartisan agreement that the fickle wheel of fortune did its spinning in the week ending June 12, 2009. That is when the Republicans really returned to power; when the democrats really fell out of it. When mainstream America figured out the Obama experiment was, in all the ways that mattered, a complete failure. Time to absorb the lessons of reality and let the tender bloated easily-bruised ego receive the punishment that had been coming.

There is, I confess, some wishful thinking involved in that. But that’s not really a bad thing. Every triumph against the odds, in human history, has started with that. And there certainly have been some. I’ll presume, for the thinking reader, no listmaking is necessary to bolster that point.

Let us instead fixate our list-making obsession on the week just departed. And in doing that, let us start with the big kahuna:

David Letterman’s sad, pathetic, stupid joke. Does Letterman have a Republican plant on his writing staff? The damage done here was incalculable. The joke delved down deep into what everybody knew, in their dark subconciousnesses, and brought it bubbling up into the light where it all had to be consciously acknowledged: How humor itself has been re-defined in the early part of the twenty-first century. Blue-blood super-liberal Manhattan comedian makes a conservative look like a buffoon, and the rest of us give a courtesy laugh. Even though it’s NOT FUNNY. This has been a seriously powerful weapon in the liberal arsenal, because if you respond to this the way a reasonable person does — roll your eyes — in our modern, twisted culture, you’re a die-hard lunatic extremist. In a more reasonable environment it is acknowledged that it takes a die-hard lunatic extremist to do the laughing.

The punchline simply didn’t pack any humor. Nobody’s waltzing into a bar and saying “Hey, didja hear the one about Alex Rodriguez and Sarah Palin’s daughter?”

What Letterman did, was wake up the “mainstream” Americans who don’t give a rip about conservatives or liberals — but who could’ve easily been suckered into voting liberal with some well-placed signals that Republicans are subhuman, beneath contempt, it’s okay to abuse ’em so it certainly should be alright to vote against ’em without bothering to study up on the issues. Well from here on out, maybe that will still work, but I think America will have a little bit better idea of what’s being done to it now. And that can’t be good for the plan.

Elsewhere on the Manhattan-lib fashion-plate front, Katie Couric’s ratings plummeted some more, and fellow fashion-plate blue-blood Manhattan-lib Jon Stewart actually had the balls to made fun of her about it.

Paul Krugman, seldom correct but never in doubt, tried to lead a charge against right-wing hate by fastening the identity of the Holocaust Memorial shooter to the conservative movement. And everly ambitious, he thought as long as he was at it he’d try to revive some credibility for that discredited Homeland Security report. He failed on both counts; as is usual for Mr. Krugman, his point failed when it was discovered the facts simply weren’t on his side. Hating George Bush, hating John McCain, being a registered Maryland democrat…these are not traits that typically apply to conservative-movement agitators. But they applied to this nutburger who’s supposed to be our new icon for conservative hate. Swing and a miss.

By now, there had arisen an urgent need to prove what was supposed to have already been proven seven months ago: that the democrats were innately nice folks, and there was something about human nature that made Republicans inherently mean. Typically, democrats like to pursue this with an objective of purity: Everything anybody does that is nice was inspired by a progressive movement somewhere, and every anecdote about man’s inhumanity to man has some conservatism in it somewhere. The Letterman joke all by itself was plenty enough to upset that applecart, so now the effort was to recover the sentiment through saturation. President Obama’s former Pastor and spiritual advisor Jeremiah Wright demonstrated his impeccable timing by choosing this as the week for his comments about talking to his former spiritual pupil: “Them Jews aren’t going to let me speak to him.” Good one! That guy we elected President to start our new Hopenchange good-time rock-n-roll chapter in history, who’d inspire us all to do better and love each other — he received spiritual counsel from this bigot for two solid decades. Republicans tried to warn ya. Ya didn’t listen. It was, and is, a reality. Yet another reminder.

And the week was still young.

Ah, but our country certainly knew what it was doing. We had a skeptical, energetic and free press filling us in on what was going on, and letting us come to our own decision about who would get our vote. Right? Well…hope you didn’t put too much faith in that. If you did, it might have come as a bit of a shock when Evan Thomas went on record to say President Obama “is sort of God.” Chris Matthews agreed. Yup. Real balanced and objective, there, gentlemen. I don’t understand why anyone ever doubted you. They must have been a bunch of unreasonable, lying, irrational, bitter angry conservatives.

Perhaps this is why — also this last week — a San Francisco Chronicle editor said “Obama and the fawning press need to get a room.”

After all that, the solid meat is still just ahead of us. Remember back in January when, if the world went to war and caught fire, you’d never have heard a single thing about it because the news was all filled up with stories about Michelle Obama’s gowns, Barack Obama’s ten balls (!), and hope was in the air? About how much the economy sucked but it was all going to get more better because we had our hopey changey iPresident now and He was going to fix everything? Nowadays the hardcore liberals, the mildly liberals, and the main-street guys who don’t care or say they don’t care — still defend that because hey, it’s only been five months since then. Give Him a chance! He’s trying His best! It’s too early, and He inherited all this! Well…sit down for this one…now, according to Rasmussen, by a six-point margin Republicans are more trusted than democrats on economic issues. Yup, that’s from this week too.

Now how’d that happen? I see a link between that story, and the one about the study from Ohio that found conservatives are more open to opposing arguments than liberals. Call me Pollyanna, but I think even the Main Street folks who don’t give a crap about any of this, intuitively understand that you can’t make good decisions in life if you already have your mind made up about something before you gather the facts. What I’m trying to say is that people want to follow a good leader, they know in their guts what a good leader looks like, and they don’t want to see someone locked into a mindset and with that mindset, a narrow field of options from which to choose for any given situation. Which, ironically, is what the democrats keep saying, citing reasons why conservatives can’t be trusted. But it turns out, in reality as well as in public opinion, liberals are the narrow-minded ones. This was aptly demonstrated when the study hit the innerwebs, and some cloistered communities of liberals aired their reactions to it. It typically looked something like this.

It’s not news to anyone who’s really been paying attention. But liberals are not open-minded, they’re not receptive to all points of view, they’re not willing to listen to new ideas, and they damn sure aren’t tolerant of anything called “diversity” unless, by diversity, you’re referring to monochrome concentrations of dark skin.

President Obama also thought He would demonstrate His impeccable political timing. Now that the country He was supposed to be leading was showing its reservations about investing in Him all this godlike power, He thought He’d appoint a czar to limit executive compensation at private firms. Now, He may have found it politically expedient to limit the effects of this to corporations accepting taxpayer funds in the form of bailout programs…and He may want to promote that…but you just can’t get around that it raises serious questions about the relationship between government and the private sector. And how long would such a policy remain limited to bailout firms? We’ll have to wait a few weeks for the polls to come out, I think. But my gut says most people are on my side on this thing, or at least, are similarly concerned. This is an alteration of the fundamental relationship between our government and the people it purports to govern. The party hacks get to decide if I’m making too much money, and cut me off at the knees if they think I’m getting as big as they are? What country is this again?

The point is, I thought it was Obama’s predecessor who was supposed to be making us ask that question.

Affirmative Action was in the news this week. You know what that is, right? That’s where, if your racial makeup is caucasian and you try to make something of yourself, you are artificially injured to help make up for the abuse that was heaped on persons of darker skin in times past. It’s a tit-for-tat thing. No wait…it isn’t…supposedly, it’s an effort to help the disenfranchised and underprivileged, and it’s entirely color-blind, any thoughts muttered to the contrary are purely hardcore right-wing agitprop. It’s long been my impression that a bare majority of the country does support Affirmative Action, but because and only because they believe that last summation. In other words, by a bare majority, we are on board with helping the underprivileged but we do not want special race-based privileges to apply. So it was further damaging when it came out that Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayer ‘fessed up that she is an “Affirmative Action baby” in comments released by the Senate Judiciary Committee. Affirmative Action baby…as in…her test scores were not comparable to her classmates’ test scores. She leapfrogged ahead in line because of her racial background. Her statement that says that.

Is America on board with that kind of Affirmative Action program? An outcome-based one that confers the same prestigious position — Associate Justice of the Supreme Court, in this case! — upon members of beneficiary-groups with mediocre achievements, as it would upon a boring-old-white-guy who can offer spectacular achievements? Don’t forget, across all racial classifications, mediocre people vastly outnumber spectacular people. So what are the ultimate consequences of this? More to the point, could the country possibly become worried about such consequences? Want to have your next brain surgery done by someone who’d never been called on to truly distinguish himself, except by his or her race? Does Main Street USA’s support for Affirmative Action extend that far? Maybe we’re about to find out.

Congressman Barney Frank…whom nobody thinks is a Republican…demonstrated that much-lauded progressive-liberal patience and tolerance for diverse points of view during a live television interview. Wonder if they factored this in to that above-mentioned study.

And then we had that progressive-liberal respect for the rule of law demonstrated by our Climate Queen — yeah, that’s another matter, our liberals-in-charge want to control our weather. Climate czar Carol Browner apparently violated the Presidential Records Act.

So the picture’s pretty complete — as it has been for awhile, but in this damaging, damaging week, it was pencilled in, painted in, tinted, shaded, and framed to perfection in such a way that the apathetic mainstream centrist voters can understand it. And understand it well. These people are in power, uncontested, out of control, as closed-minded as any Republican has ever been, hateful, intolerant, impetuous, as pissy and resentful as any loser of elections has ever been. They are as dim and incurious as George W. Bush has ever been. They cannot get along with anyone else, even their own. They cannot deal with important decisions because they cannot deal with facts. They just want to have power over everybody else, and that’s all. Well, that and accumulate magnitudes of personal wealth as lofty and imposing as what they would deny to others.

The only thing missing from this week…and this may have happened too, if I missed it…was the usual, regularly “scheduled” embarrassing gaffe from Vice President Joe Biden. Other than that one cherry on top, everything else was there this week.

Small wonder that Biden’s old contender for the #2 spot, apparently felt so justified in saying I told you so.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

Bad Week For San Fran Nan

Saturday, May 16th, 2009

Fellow Right Wing News contributor William Teach brings us up to date, as of yesterday:

If the Democrats thought the Central Intelligence Agency was out to get them over the past few weeks, they ain’t seen nuttin’ yet after this little bit of insanity

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi today accused intelligence officials of giving her “inaccurate and incomplete information” on the use of waterboarding and other harsh interrogation tactics by the Bush administration, saying that CIA officials are guilty of “misleading the Congress of the United States.” [emphasis Teach’s]

That should go over well with the folks in Langley and the CIA employees around the world, eh? Here’s a partial transcript, via Powerline (which also wonders how long Nancy P. will survive as speaker)

QUESTION: You say that Mr. Sheehy did tell you, your staff did tell you.

PELOSI: He informed me that the briefing had taken place. … When — when — when my staff person — I’m sorry, the page is out of order — five months later, my staff person told me that there had been a briefing — informing that there had been a briefing and that a letter had been sent. I was not briefed on what was in that briefing; I was just informed that the briefing had taken place.

So — so let’s get this straight. The Bush administration has conceived a policy, the CIA comes to the Congress, withholds information about the timing and the use of this subject. They — we later find out that it had been taking place before they even briefed us about the legal opinions and told us that they were not being used. …

QUESTION: Madam Speaker, just to be clear, you’re accusing the CIA of lying to you in September of 2002?

PELOSI: Yes, misleading the Congress of the United States, misleading the Congress of the United States. I am.

She repeats it several more times, and, like all the children in the Democrat Party, can’t take responsibility, and tries to deflect to Bush.

It gets much better. Teach supplies an update from Politico, this morning, that House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer is less than enthused in supporting Pelosi’s version of events…assuming he’s supporting that version at all. Which he isn’t.

Liar, Liar, Pants on FireHoyer — a polished floor debater — was drawn into an extended exchange with Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) on the issue this afternoon and said he didn’t have enough information on the briefings to draw a conclusion — and wasn’t inclined to doubt the CIA anyway.

Still, Hoyer said he regarded the entire matter as a distraction that the GOP was using to take attention off of their support of questionable interrogation procedures.

Rep. Cantor: “I share with the gentleman the notion we need to follow the law. But if there is somehow a belief, and I’d ask the gentleman whether he shares this belief, that somehow the CIA or others have intentionally misled this body, because that seems to be some concern that has been raised today? And I yield.”

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer: “I have no idea of that, don’t have a belief of that nature because I have no basis on which to base such a belief. And I certainly hope that’s not the case. I don’t draw that conclusion.” [emphasis Politico’s]

Ah, but Ace had another update today about Nan’s stories. It seems someone’s gotten to her and told her the CIA makes a much better friend than enemy. So Nan wants a mulligan:

Apparently she mistook her CIA briefer, who introduced himself as such, for Vice President Dick Cheney. Which isn’t as impossible as it sounds; I see Dick Cheney’s face everywhere — in rainbows, in curve of a baby’s smile, on my girlfriend’s back as we tenderly fornicate.

I assume she similarly has a bad case of Cheney obsession.

UPDATE: Pelosi’s office has responded with a gentle statement supporting the work of the intelligence community, saying she was criticizing the Bush administration, not the bureaucrats at the CIA:

“We all share great respect for the dedicated men and women of the intelligence community who are deeply committed to the safety and security of the American people. My criticism of the manner in which the Bush Administration did not appropriately inform Congress is separate from my respect for those in the intelligence community who work to keep our country safe. What is important now is to be united in our commitment to ensuring the security of our country; that, and how Congress exercises its oversight responsibilities, will continue to be my focus as we move forward.”

Seems to me a pretty clear attempt to walk back yesterday’s fresh new story that she had been lied to. She doesn’t want the documents coming out that prove her to be a liar, so she’s attempting a “Let’s just call it a draw” withdrawal of the claim.
And now, now that the CIA is calling her a liar and further damaging her dwindling authority, she decides she really meant it was the Bush Administration, and not the CIA at all.


As happy as Speaker Nan must be to see Friday get here — long regarded as the best day of the week to get embarrassing news out there, so the damage can be absorbed with the least harmful effect possible — the hits are keepin’ on comin’. James Taranto at Wall Street Journal’s Best of the Web was positively amused before it was all over for the day…

Pelosi Reaps the Whirlwind
Speaker Nancy Pelosi held a press conference yesterday, and it was a memorable performance. We’ll leave the memorial duties to Dana Milbank of the Washington Post, the Beltway’s Sultan of Snark:

The speaker of the House had just read a statement accusing the CIA of lying and was trying to beat a hasty retreat from her news conference before reporters could point out contradictions between her current position and her previous statements.

“Thank you!” an aide called out to signal an end to the session. Pelosi walked, sideways, away from the lectern and, still sidling in a sort of crab walk, was halfway to the door when a yell from CNN’s Dana Bash, rising above the rest of the shouting, froze her in the aisle.

“Madam Speaker!” the correspondent called out. “I think there’s one other question that I would like to ask, if that’s okay.”

“Sure, okay,” Pelosi said, in a way that indicated it was not okay. Pelosi had no choice but to sidle back to the lectern.

Over the next few minutes of shouted questions–“They lied to you? Were you justified? When were you first told? Did you protest? Why didn’t you tell us?”–the speaker attempted the crab-walk retreat again, returned to the lectern again and then finally skittered out of the room.

Everyone knows by now what happened: Pelosi was encouraging the Angry Left as it demanded retribution against Bush administration officials for their efforts to protect America from terrorist attacks in the wake of 9/11. Now that she has been exposed as complicit in those efforts, she is reaping the whirlwind of hatred that she helped stir up. And she is going to war with the CIA–a war in which even someone with much more intelligence than Nancy Pelosi would be vastly outmatched.

This Reuters dispatch on the Pelosi performance gave us a big smile:

The troubles of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi threatened to divert Democrats from President Barack Obama’s economic agenda when many Americans would like to put Bush-era controversies behind them.

In journalese, many, like some, is a first-person singular pronoun. As it happens, we agree with Reuters that many Americans would like to put Bush-era controversies behind them. But we thought so even before one of those controversies reached the verge of consuming a leading Democrat.

All in all, not a good week. It is the experience of a high profile official who is decidedly out of her depth. Lying, in the beltway, is nothing new. Lying when everyone with a working brain knows, beyond the shadow of any doubt, that you’re lying — likewise, that’s nothing new.

Pelosi’s lack of elegance is something of a surprise, and it would seem to be a nearly-fatal flaw. She possesses all of the slippery, filthy characteristics of a greasy old engine part dragged into a finely decorated dining room, unceremoniously dropped onto a priceless linen tablecloth. But she retains none of the lubricating qualities of such an artifact. There is a pretense of sincerity in her words, but it is all for nothing because there is nothing inviting about the prospect of believing in it, or of even pretending to believe in it.

She’s simply a bad liar. Only by becoming her willing accomplice, and advertising to all who pay attention that you’re becoming her willing accomplice, can you even go through the motions of buying off on even a tiny part of it.

This is not, I think, the lofty height to which the experienced beltway politician with her finely honed people-skills aspires — when she seeks to deceive. There’s simply no getting around it. We’re seeing an exceptionally bad execution here. A freshman in Congress should be well beyond this n00bie level of error.

Dayum, it’s a good thing we didn’t get that tundra dimbulb from the igloo-trailer in our nation’s capitol isn’t it? Ain’t it great having these sophisticated metropolitan types in charge of things?

Credit for the picture goes to Barack Obama’s Teleprompter’s Wall Photos page, via blogger friend Rick at Brutally Honest.

Cross-posted at Right Wing News.

Wine Opener

Thursday, May 7th, 2009

The Chief Justice of the Delaware Supreme Court is in trouble for forwarding an e-mail with a racy video. That’s a shame, but it gave me the information I needed to track down what I think is the video…and some others.

I don’t particularly feel like talking about Chief Justices getting in trouble, so on with the videos.

Extremism Dictionary

Thursday, May 7th, 2009

Homeland Security just recalled it and I think I know why.

It could be because there are one or two “definitions” that would create a problem…although I don’t think so. If there is a hot-potato like that in there somewhere, it flew under my radar when I skimmed through, and I wasn’t really looking for one anyway.

No, I think what’s really incriminating here is the mindset revealed when such a “lexicon” is assembled in the first place. Because these “groups” are all — or could be reasonably inferred to be — lawful citizens, whom the law says belong here, who are supposed to be here.

It is indicative of a government at war with the very people it is supposed to represent.

It takes all those talking points about “working for everyone” — and derails them like wayward locomotives. It’s the Big Reveal. This government isn’t here for “everyone.” It isn’t even here for some of us. It is here to sit in judgment of us.

How Obama Ruined the Easter Egg Roll

Sunday, March 29th, 2009

Such a petty complaint, I looked high and low to see if it’s satire…which it still could be, I suppose. At this point I just don’t know.

But to repeat the theme of the previous post: I wonder what outcry would ensue if Palin did this?

How Obama Ruined The Easter Egg Roll
Posted on 03.28.09 by Danny Glover @ 4:15 pm

Change has come to the annual White House Easter Egg Roll, and our family is not happy about it. The end result is that we won’t get to go for the first time in nine years.

President Obama thought outside the box and decided it was better to move the ticketing process online — and predictably, the system didn’t work as advertised. I know because I tried off and on all day to get free tickets for the event. Most of the time I couldn’t even access the system; the two times my wife and I did, we were booted from it right as we placed our orders.

By 7:45 p.m. Thursday, we were rewarded for our efforts with this message: “Tickets are no longer available for the 2009 White House Easter Egg Roll.”

Washington’s local NBC station reported on the problems during the day Thursday. And here’s a recap from The Washington Post the next day:

The White House’s Internet distribution of tickets to this year’s Easter Egg Roll appears to have begun with a splat. …

Several people said that they were unable to log on to the White House ticket site or that when they logged on, tickets weren’t available. Some resorted to Craigslist to find tickets, for as much as $50 apiece.

Kristin Vergis of Garden City, N.Y., said she was up until midnight to see whether the ticket site was active. She went to the site again at 6 a.m. and tried to reserve tickets throughout the day, to no avail. “At one point, I got through the verification process and then was timed out,” she said in an e-mail to The Post. “I wish the ticket process had been left the way it was.”

I know my wife wishes Obama’s high-tech minions had left the process alone. Technology doesn’t always make things better, and in this case, it definitely made matters worse.

People like us who, technologically speaking, were in line before anyone else didn’t get tickets. The fairness of the first-come, first-served process of the past was dumped for a system that rewarded egg-roll enthusiasts based on random luck.

All you had to do was click at the right time (without knowing what that time was) and hope that the system didn’t boot you before your order was processed. It’s as if the White House invited everyone to camp in D.C. and gave tickets to those who fought their way to the front of the line, not those who were there first.

There’s another flaw in the online approach: With the egg roll more than two weeks from the date of the online ticket distribution, as opposed to at most three days in the past, the Obama administration has created a huge opening for the online scalping of free tickets.

“Remember These Earnings the Next Time the Administration Feigns Outrage”

Friday, March 27th, 2009

So says Texas Rainmaker about Rahm Emmanuel’s profits from Freddie Mac.

Obama’s Chief of Staff Profited from Freddie Mac Scandal
March 26th, 2009 8:40 am

This should come as no surprise.

Before its portfolio of bad loans helped trigger the current housing crisis, mortgage giant Freddie Mac was the focus of a major accounting scandal that led to a management shake-up, huge fines and scalding condemnation of passive directors by a top federal regulator.

One of those allegedly asleep-at-the-switch board members was Chicago’s Rahm Emanuel—now chief of staff to President Barack Obama—who made at least $320,000 for a 14-month stint at Freddie Mac that required little effort.

Remember these earnings the next time the administration feigns outrage over corporate pay.

He was named to the Freddie Mac board in February 2000 by Clinton, whom Emanuel had served as White House political director and vocal defender during the Whitewater and Monica Lewinsky scandals.

The board met no more than six times a year. Unlike most fellow directors, Emanuel was not assigned to any of the board’s working committees, according to company proxy statements. Immediately upon joining the board, Emanuel and other new directors qualified for $380,000 in stock and options plus a $20,000 annual fee, records indicate.

On Emanuel’s watch, the board was told by executives of a plan to use accounting tricks to mislead shareholders about outsize profits the government-chartered firm was then reaping from risky investments. The goal was to push earnings onto the books in future years, ensuring that Freddie Mac would appear profitable on paper for years to come and helping maximize annual bonuses for company brass.

You know the right way to present this to a true-blue, died-in-the-wool liberal who you just know is going to be grasping-at-straws to find a way to excuse it?

It’s like Sarah Palin prancing around in $100,000 worth of clothes…and then getting her knickers in a twist over the fact that you’re wearing a suit that lists for $300. And then appealing to Congress for a retroactive tax that will cut you down to size and leave you naked.

Except Palin looks a helluva lot better wearing expensive clothes than Rahm Emmanuel does with a wallet full of cash!

Obama’s Cabinet

Sunday, February 8th, 2009

Well…I’m sure things will work out much better from here-on-out. Presidential administrations very often straighten-out and fly-right after stumbling out of the gate. It happens frequently. Frequently. Let me think…lemme think…

I’ll get back to you on that.

On the other hand, it’s been a long time since I’ve seen one cartoon sum up such a big mess, with just the right mix of biting humor and poignancy. Adam Zyglis, Buffalo News.

A Disqualifying Amount?

Thursday, February 5th, 2009

Phil spotted something that made him want to grab a bag of popcorn.

Three time zones away, we’re tossing one in the microwave too. This is great stuff.

Are they selling popcorn? This is almost cheerin’ me up.

At yesterday’s White House briefing, ABC News’s Jake Tapper asked whether Obama worried that the nearly $200,000 in back taxes and penalties owed between Geithner and Daschle will “undercut the president’s cry for an era of responsibility.”

“Both Secretary Geithner and Secretary-designate Daschle are the right people for very important jobs,” press secretary Robert Gibbs replied.

“Is there an amount of money in unpaid back taxes for any nominee to the President’s Cabinet that would be considered disqualifying?” needled Fox News’s Major Garrett.

“I’m not going to get into hypotheticals,” Gibbs answered.

No link there, but you can check out the crunchiest details here. Most every kernel popped, too.

I wonder what the Founding Fathers would say if you could dig ’em up, light ’em up or thaw ’em out. If you believe everything you read in the public school system, they’d say “Yupsiree, I knew when we wrote those documents they wuz perfect in every way, godlike things.” I’ve never completely subscribed to that theory. Perfect stuff is built by perfectionists, and perfectionists are never happy.

My opinion is, they’d unanimously agree the experiment has failed.

What was the central focus? To create a nation of laws, not of men. To create a society in which all are beholden to the same law, no man above it.

It’s become a freakin’ joke.

And I don’t think the Founding Fathers would blame our politicians, either. They’d blame us.

Standard Bearer?

Saturday, January 10th, 2009

I cannot find a source for this, anywhere. But I’d already researched all these facts, most of ’em anyway, at the time they rolled into my mailbox…at least, I was already aware of them at a thirty-thousand-foot level.

I don’t fault anyone for hearing of these tidbits and making a decision to dismiss them, and I don’t fault anyone for their indictments and grudges against Republicans who were deferred for pimples on their asses, or didn’t serve, or failed to fill out their billets in the Texas Air National Guard, or what-not.

To do both, however — to dismiss out-of-hand these things said against loyal democrats, and to embrace wholeheartedly the “high-grade dirt” dished out against influential Republicans — is an egregious sin of ideological puritanism. Or plain ol’ intellectual dishonesty. And it’s widespread. The effect is we now have a plurality of generations of people who are entirely unaware of what has really taken place…

Ted Kennedy, the hero of Chappaquiddick; As soon as cancer was found, I noticed the immediate attempt at canonization of old Teddy by the main stream media. They are saying what a “great American” he is. I say, let’s get a couple things clear & not twist the facts to change the real history.

1. He was caught cheating at Harvard when he attended it.. He was expelled twice, once for cheating on a test, and once for paying a classmate to cheat for him

2. While expelled, Kennedy enlisted in the Army, but mistakenly signed up for four years instead of two. Oops, the man can’t count to four. His father, Joseph P. Kennedy, former U.S. Ambassador to England (a step up from bootlegging liquor into the US from Canada during prohibition), pulled the necessary strings to have his enlistment shortened to two years, and to ensure that he served in Europe, not Korea, where a war was raging. No preferential treatment for him like “he” charged President Bush received.

3. Kennedy was assigned to Paris , never advanced beyond the rank of Private, and returned to Harvard upon being discharged. imagine a person of his “education” NEVER advancing past the rank of Private.

4. While attending law school at the University of Virginia, he was cited for reckless driving four times, including once when he was clocked driving 90 miles per hour in a residential neighborhood with his headlights off after dark. Yet his Virginia driver’s license was never revoked. Coincidentally, he passed the bar exam in 1959, amazing!!!

5. In 1964, he was seriously injured in a plane crash, and hospitalized for several months. Test results done by the hospital at the time he was admitted had shown he was legally intoxicated. The results of those tests remained a “state secret” until in the 1980’s when the report was unsealed. Didn’t hear about that from the unbiased media, did we.

6. On July 19, 1969, Kennedy attended a party on Chappaquiddick Island in Massachusetts . At about 11:00 PM, he borrowed his chauffeur’s keys to his Oldsmobile limousine, and offered to give a ride home to Mary Jo Kopechne, a campaign worker. Leaving the island via an unlit bridge with no guard rail, Kennedy steered the car off the bridge, flipped, and into Poucha Pond.

7. He swam to shore and walked back to the party, after passing several houses and a fire station. Then two friends returned with him to the scene of the accident. According to their later testimony, they told him what he already knew, that he was required by law to immediately report the accident to the authorities. Instead Kennedy made his way to his hotel, called his lawyer, and went to sleep. Kennedy called the police the next morning and by then the wreck had already been discovered. Before dying, Kopechne had scratched at the upholstered floor above her head in the upside-down car. The Kennedy family began “calling in favors”, ensuring that any inquiry would be contained. Her corpse was whisked out-of-state to her family, before an autopsy could be conducted. Further details are uncertain, but after the accident Kennedy says he repeatedly dove under the water trying to rescue Kopechne, and he didn’t call police because he was in a state of shock. It is widely assumed Kennedy was drunk, and he held off calling police in hopes that his family could fix the problem overnight. Since the accident, Kennedy’s “political enemies” have referred to him as the distinguished Senator from Chappaquiddick. He pled guilty to leaving the scene of an accident, and was given a SUSPENDED SENTENCE OF TWO MONTHS. Kopechne’s family received a small payout from the Kennedy’s insurance policy, and never sued. There was later an effort to have her body exhumed and autopsied, but her family successfully fought against this in court, and Kennedy’s family paid their attorney’s bills… a “token of friendship”?

8. Kennedy has held his Senate seat for more than forty years, but considering his longevity, his accomplishments seem scant. He authored or argued for legislation that ensured a variety of civil rights, increased the minimum wage in 1981, made access to health care easier for the indigent, and funded Meals on Wheels for fixed-income seniors and is widely held as the “standard-bearer for liberalism”. In his very first Senate roll, he was the floor manager for the bill that turned U.S. immigration policy upside down and opened the floodgate for immigrants from third world countries.

9. Since that time, he has been the prime instigator and author of every expansion of and increase in immigration, up to and including the latest attempt to grant amnesty to illegal aliens. Not to mention the Pious grilling he gave the last two Supreme Court Nominees, as if he were the standard bearer for the nation in matters of right. What a pompous ass.

10. He is known around Washington as a public drunk, loud, boisterous and very disrespectful to ladies. JERK is a better description than “great American”.

If you want to excuse all of the above because you like his political agenda, then fine. Just admit that’s what you’re doing, and I don’t wanna hear you trying to recruit people into hating Bush & Cheney because “he was born on third and thought he hit a triple.” There’s a saying about throwing stones when you live in a glass house, knowwhatimean?

On Last Night’s Blagojevich Opening Skit

Sunday, December 14th, 2008

I daresay there was a lot less “satire” involved in that one than there has been in any SNL opening skit since, uh, maybe somewhere around Reagan’s second term. No, I don’t have anything specific in mind. I haven’t seen ’em all, not even most of ’em, I’m just saying somewhere around twenty years or so.

I would also like to say that if you have so much as a shred of sincerity about you as a sentient being capable of verbally communicating its innermost thoughts…if you are in the habit of forming your opinions about current events from SNL opening skits, and have the candor to admit it…if you were ever concerned about a certain Vice-Presidential candidate saying she could see Russia from her house* — your concern about this ended sometime between last night and this morning.


*Sarah Palin never actually said that.

Coward of the Country

Sunday, December 14th, 2008

The Blog That Nobody Reads has an informal policy about naughty language. We are mindful of the fact that some of you might be browsing to our humble pages during your lunch break at work, perhaps waiting for some script to compile or whatever. Now that the hour is late, some social compacts have emerged in the world of blogs, which have been divided into those that try to remain somewhat “work safe” and those that do not. They are mostly common sense. For example, we used to put the “S” word that describes fecal matter right into our headline. Gasp! It seems a little nit-picky to enact an informal policy against that, but we did, and we don’t do that anymore. George Carlin’s Seven Words You Cannot Say, are kept out of the headline, or anything that’s in big font. That’s the line we draw.

We also went a little overboard, in our view, going so far as to keep George Carlin’s Seven Words You Cannot Say out of the text itself. We will do that, to a certain extent. But we’ve softened it a bit. That’s because we like to make everyday life safe for real people…not for ninnies. And, I’m sorry, but if you’re walking along in front of some other guy’s computer terminal when he’s on his lunch break and you see in our humble font the word “titty” and suddenly you’re tearing down the hallway to the H.R. department screaming with your arms flailing over your head…well, maybe someone somewhere wants to make life less traumatic for you, but we shall not be joining in that sad charade. No, if we were going to keep that policy rigid and zero-tolerant, it would be out of conern to those corporate firewalls that block websites automatically when they see these words going up the tubes. But how concerned should we be about those? The latter is a direct consequence of the former. Besides, it’s a batshit-stupid policy. I don’t know who actually still enforces it. Having a dirty word down in the actual text of something, could be a situation that easily comes up with doing actual work on the innerwebs. No, I’m not trying to be funny. Think of technical advice forums, professional information exchange forums, membership-only, things that are behind some kind of closed door.

We’ll not think on that too long. In a world where we try to be diverse and all-inclusive, it quickly becomes futile to think every possible scenario out to the very end — at least among things that involve people. We take the Jim Morrison Human Resources approach: “People are strange.”

And, if you act like a grown-up, solutions to problems tend to fall into place.

We use our courtesy-language decal (above) when things are about to get spicy. Out of respect to our readers, so they can apply their best judgment.

We do not use the word “fuck” as many times as we possibly can to show how tough we are. If you want some of that, hang out on a middle school playground. Or, go browse Feministing.

We do not use cute punctuation marks as substitutions here. We’ve simply gotten tired of trying to noodle out the “gray areas” of rules like those. Is “titty” a George Carlin word? (We found out, to our great surprise, that it is.) Should you use bangs in it, i.e., “ti!!y”? The intended meaning does not seem obvious unless the context sheds some light on where you’re going with it; looks kind of like “tilly.” Besides, FARK has a virtual copyright on fark, biatch and shiat. We love virtual copyrights here. We love ’em more than real copyrights. They remind us that people can behave with civility and courtesy toward each other without a bunch of rules forcing them to do so. Renews our faith in humankind. Kind of like, when you’re at the bank, and there’s seven tellers and suddenly six of ’em go on a lunch break, everyone gets into one line.

Besides, we are beneficiaries of the virtual copyright, since we never did actually patent “The Blog That Nobody Reads.” But the catchphrse is still ours, thanks to the common courtesy and decency of others.

No naughty pictures embedded in the pages. Penises nipples and verginers should be covered up; if they are not, then that picture is linked-not-embedded. Unless it has to do with civilized, non-prurient artwork that doesn’t focus on the anotomical tidbit, like for example, here.

So that’s our policy. Use common sense, good judgment, be a little flexible in all things, act like an adult and things will turn out alright for the most part.

Having said all that…and with our little mouth-covered-man in place to warn all you weenies about what’s coming up…we’re going to indulge in the unusual practice of excerpting Misha’s fine prose from the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler without cleaning it up. And the occasion is Rahm Emmanuel throwing a hissy fit, in that adorable way liberals do when they think they’re being manly, when they’re really being quite the opposite. You know how they get when they’re trying to be all big-and-bad — with that whistle tucked in between their lips, tooting on it every two seconds as this thing is declared out of bounds and that other things is declared out of bounds. Like bossy little girls. “Not s’poseda do THIS! Not s’poseda do THAT!”

After a lifetime spent trying to avoid that kind of shemale, we find our skills for dealing with them somewhat atrophied. Which suits us just fine. That’s a man adapting to his environment, there. But a man also has to know his limitations, and the Emperor Misha I is, quite plain and simply, much better qualified for dealing with this type of…eh…personality…than are we.

But it’s not January 20 yet and the Holy One has not yet been crowned. Let that event come and go and tack on another year or two, maybe we’ll have adapted to our environment yet again. It’s about to become a whistle-sissy world.

And if that’s a sign of civilization, then how come things are falling apart so quickly? It’s still early! The iPresident Man-Messiah-God isn’t going to be coronated for a long time. The carpenters aren’t ordering the boards and nails to assemble those platforms for inauguration day, just yet…the pyrotechnicians aren’t even thinking about it.

What a Sad Pussy
Posted by: Emperor Misha I in Democrat Culture of Corruption, Useless Swine
2:08 PM

Rahm Emanuel is now whining that he’s been “receiving death threats” over his obvious involvement in one of the nastiest corruption scandals in the history of our nation, which is saying a bit when you talk about Democrats.

Back at his home, Emanuel appeared “beet-red,” according to an ABC News cameraman who was invited inside by Emanuel to use his bathroom this morning.

“I’m getting regular death threats. You’ve put my home address on national television. I’m pissed at the networks. You’ve intruded too much, ” Emanuel said, according to the cameraman.

Awwww… What a sad, metrosexual pussy of a seemingly male member of the species. What happened to the Capone-like “man’s man” who once listed a number of defeated political enemies at a dinner, punctuating every cry of “DEAD!” by stabbing his steak knife into the table?

Time to brush the sand out of your vagina, “Rahmbo”, isn’t it?

And, by the way, where was your outrage when Joe the Plumber was subjected to similar treatment and worse simply because he’d had the nerve, nerve to ask your nutless empty suit of a Jug-Eared Marxist Freak Candidate an honest question that your neophyte dumbass Anointed One couldn’t answer without shooting himself in both feet?

Have a fucking cookie and a glass of milk, you gutless pansy masquerading as a man, because you’re beginning to annoy us with your whininess. Make mommy kiss it and it’ll be all better, we promise you.

Cowardly corrupt Chicago Machine fuck. It’s all fun and games bragging about how you’ve “killed” your political opponents until the shoe is on the other fucking foot, isn’t it?

That’s art, right there. Don’t argue with me about it…if my Government can declare a crucifix soaked in urine to be art, then what appears above damn sure is some kind of art. Brings a tear to my eye. And besides, I’m not expecting anyone else to pay for it.

Pay close attention, Feministing fans. That is how you use the word “fuck” to make a valid point. How to use it as a tool, the way a man uses it, not as some kind of decoration to be hung on your Christmas tree as many times as you need to in completion of some kind of weird decorating scheme. Like an airheaded woman trying too hard not to look like an airheaded woman.

I note the rich irony, again, that I’m reading about this the morning after watching Kenny Rogers’ 1981 film. That story, too, is about a guy who used his two-fisted masculine Power To Destroy Things with a high degree of selectivity. Except he did it after “twenty years of crawling,” and when he did, it was all substance, no form. Making a mockery of everyone who “considered him the coward of the county.”

Rahm Emmanuel is a completely different type of seasonal aggressor, in that his mouth means everything to the exercise and his fists actually mean very little. He’s all form and no substance. He’s the loudmouth kid on the playground, the one who can dish things out all day long but can’t take ’em.

And that fucker isn’t doing twenty years of anything. He’s not bottling anything up at all. He’s shoving people around when the situation suits him, and changing overnight when the situation changes, suddenly all thin skinned and “receiving death threats.” Good one. Christ, I’m tired of liberals receiving death threats. I wish I could wave a magic wand, and make it so that anytime some asshole drones on about receiving his death threats in his e-mail, no matter for what purpose, he’s got sixty seconds to produce them in fucking hardcopy or his head fucking explodes.

It’s e-mail (I assume…Rahm-a-lama-ding-dong does not say…I’m just making the leap, and it isn’t a big one). Private e-mail. Not like Sarah Palin’s e-mail. Most e-mail isn’t hacked. You could say there’s an invitation from Queen Elizabeth to join Her Majesty at tea time tomorrow afternoon, and nobody is in any position to doubt it…only to call it into question, and that’s all. Whining about “death threats in my e-mail” is about the most gutless thing you can do, even if it’s true. The whole generic statement, no matter what the probability in any context, would be stigmatized into meaninglessness overnight in a truly sophisticated society.

Hardcopy printout or it didn’t happen. And even then I call shenanigans. Fuckers.

“I Am Senate Candidate 5”

Friday, December 12th, 2008

FrankJ has a confession to make.

I have a confession: I’m the Senate Candidate 5 referred to in the Blagojevich complaint.

Let me explain. I hear this guy Blagojevich has some great deal on something, and it’s getting near Christmas so I’m keeping an eye out for deals. So I go meet with this “Blago” guy downtown to see what he has. He tells me he has a Senate seat for sale. Now, I wasn’t really that interested in a Senate seat, but still I figured I might as well ask how much he wanted.

He tells me three thousand dollars.

So I’m like, “Three thousand dollars is a lot of money… in this economy.” Again, I didn’t really want a Senate seat.

So he tells me, “This isn’t just any Senate seat. This Senate seat used to be owned by international celebrity Barack Obama.”

Now I was interested. That could be a real conversation piece. Friends would be like, “I hear you’re a Senator.”

And I’d say, “Yeah, but guess who used to have this Senate seat: President Barack Obama.”

Still, I was a bit suspicious. I looked up this guy Blagojevich before I met with him, and according to Wikipedia he is the Governor of Illinois. Even so, the name really sounds made up and anyone can edit Wikipedia. So I tell him I need some certification to prove this Senate seat was actually owned by Obama. He shows me the certification and it looks pretty official, so I decide I should go ahead and buy the Senate seat. I’m guessing he could have gotten a lot more for it on eBay, but he really needed the cash right now for some reason.

It gets better from there on, believe it or not.

Blagojevich Questions

Thursday, December 11th, 2008

…are censored on Obama’s web site (hat tip: Boortz).

That last question is a little on the tart side. The first two are about as polite as can be. But I guess if you simply ask a question that might lead to an unflattering tidbit of information about the iPresident-Elect Man-Messiah-God, then you have sacrileged and must be shunned.

At this point, is there a difference between Barack Obama and Mao Tse Tung, other than head shape, age and fashion ensemble? This stuff should scare the bejeezus out of you even if you’ve been a rabid ass-licking Obamaton for the last two years solid…especially if you’ve spent the last eight years blowing the whistle on various complaints containing the words “George Bush” and “Constitution.” This guy is going to be the most powerful homo sapiens on the face of the globe — apart from being a religious figure, within a religion that escapes accountability by being a phantom religion. And you aren’t allowed to say anything bad about Him. You can’t even inquire if someone thinks the inquiry is straying off into territory that might be uncomfortable for Him.

I got a feeling if President Bush was really out to undermine the Constitution, we’re about to be shown how much of an amateur he really is in that department. He’s about to be seriously upstaged.

Heh. What am I saying? It’s Obama’s bootlickers doing this. The Chosen One doesn’t even have to take responsibility for what’s going on on His web site. La dee da…don’t know anything about it…

Update: Also — these news articles uploaded to the web earlier, from television station KHQA — they ain’t there anymore.

Buckle up America. You’re in for a wild ride.