Tuesday, June 30, 2009

Not Again! Another Airbus Crashes; 150 Passengers On Board

Only a few weeks ago the Air France lost one of its planes, an Airbus 330, with 228 lives lost. Today Yemenia, the national airline of Yemen, lost an Airbus 310 with 150 passengers on board.

The scene at the airport must have been horrendous.
"Television reports suggested that families waiting to meet passengers at Moroni airport saw the plane make an approach to the runway, and turn to make a second attempt. It never returned, disappearing from radar screens shortly afterwards."

Officials believe the weather may have been involved in the crash and do not believe terrorism was at play.

Please pray for those who are missing and for the loved ones who are still waiting to see their loved ones.

Monday, June 29, 2009

Professional Courtesy: Honduran President Overstepping Authority Protected By American President

Professional courtesy is not dead. The Honduran President Manuel Zelaya, who happens to be buddy-buddy with Hugo Chavez, attempted to ram a policy through that would remove term limits from his presidency. Sound familiar? Yeah, that's what Chavez has been trying to do in Venezuela for years.

After Zelaya violated a mandate from the Honduran Supreme Court to stop seeking the term-limit rule change, the military refused to follow Zelaya's orders to carry out the vote. As president, what do you do when people in your government start acting in ways that make you look bad? You illegally fire them, of course; as Obama did with IG Walpin, Zelaya did with the head of his military.

The Honduran Supreme Court then ordered that the military arrest Zelaya, which the military carried out and exiled him to Costa Rica.

As Barack Obama is not one to meddle in the actions of a sovereign nation (i.e. Iran), he simply kept an eye on the situation and did not get involved. Oh wait...
"The Obama administration and members of the Organization of American States had worked for weeks to try to avert any moves to overthrow President Zelaya, said senior U.S. officials. Washington's ambassador to Honduras, Hugo Llorens, sought to facilitate a dialogue between the president's office, the Honduran parliament and the military.

The efforts accelerated over the weekend, as Washington grew increasingly alarmed. "The players decided, in the end, not to listen to our message," said one U.S. official involved in the diplomacy. On Sunday, the U.S. embassy here tried repeatedly to contact the Honduran military directly, but was rebuffed. Washington called the removal of President Zelaya a coup and said it wouldn't recognize any other leader."

So as people fight and die for their freedom in Iran, Obama wants to have a hands-off approach, but when a Latin-American president seeks to adopt dictatorial status, Obama sides with Chavez and Castro in condemning his ousting.


Some have seen this as an inconsistency, but not I. In Iran the people fighting for liberty are seeking to overthrow a government that has overstepped its bounds, and Obama cannot abide such insubordination. In Honduras the government overthrew a president who was attempting to overstep its bounds, and this makes Obama a little nervous.

Friday, June 26, 2009

America Mourns It's Most Prominant Pedophile; Iran, Economy, Still in Tail-spin

Many of you out there find the next comment a damnable offense, but here it goes: I've never owned a Michael Jackson album nor have I ever had the desire to purchase one.

Whew. That feels better.

I was 2 years old when Thriller came out. I was 7 when Bad was released. Therefore Michael Jackson was less a musician in my mind and more of a joke to late-night comics. When I was old enough to appreciate his music, I didn't. I was never really that impressed.

So the wall-to-wall coverage of his death seemed a little baffling to me considering that I associated him more with little boys than I did with music.

Did we forget people are fighting for liberty in Iran?

Did we stuff our ears with our iPods to relive the '80's via Thriller while the House passed Cap-and-Trade by a 7 vote margin?

Have we as a nation become so enamored by the bread and circuses that we're not even paying attention to what the Caesars, both foreign and domestic, are doing?

Thursday, June 25, 2009

Photo of Sanford Mistress Found?

It's the talk of the web. "So what does she look like?" Presumably the subtext is, "Was she hot enough to throw away a great family and an opportunity to be president some day?" FreeRepublic may have come across photos of Mark Sanford's international chica Maria Belen Chapur.

So was she worth it? In my opinion: not hardly. (But that would have been my opinion no matter what!)

Update: Here are some more photos.

3 Reasons Mark Sanford's Political Career Sholdn't be Over (But Probably Is)

After the press conference where Governor Mark Sanford admitted that his mysterious 4-day disappearance the resignation of the governor may be a fait accompli. But that need not be the case. The Sanford case illustrates several problems inherent to the Republican party and the conservative movement.

3. Sexual Misconduct Doesn't Kill Political Careers (Resigning Does)
If you're a politician, it's almost guaranteed that at some point you will be connected with a scandal. Sometimes it's because of something you did; sometimes it's because the press or the opposition party has attached the scandal to you in some way.

In the Sanford case, there is no doubt. He did it. Nobody threw him under the bus. Nobody threw this at him and made it stick. He is guilty by his own admission.

But when it comes to sexual problems, these things have a way of working themselves out. Sure you're a dirty slimeball who cheated on your wife, abandoned your children over Father's Day, but do you really want to give up a political career? Sex doesn't spell the end, but a resignation does.

In 1989 Barney Frank had a gay prostitution ring running out of his apartment, and is still has a powerful political career twenty years later.

In 1998 the world found out about Bill Clinton's escapades with a White House intern, but in spite of an impeachment, he still has a vibrant speaking career and is inexplicably revered by many in the country.

Neither of these men resigned, and both have been political powerhouses even after their sexual misconduct. So why do sexual misdeeds serve as political career killers for some politicians, but not others? It's quite simple...

2. Republicans Demand Integrity from Their Politicians
Barney Frank and Bill Clinton have two things in common
1) Both find the prospect of a sexual encounter with Hillary Clinton revolting
2) They are both Democrats

When Democrats have career threatening-scandals crop up, they have learned to just just ride the storm and it will pass. Remember how just a few weeks ago Nancy Pelosi was on the political chopping block? She rode it out and seems to be in the clear politically now. Remember how Senator Ted Kennedy killed a girl while driving drunk near Chappaquiddick?

When Republicans run into scandal, both Republicans and Democrats demand their resignation, and the Republican attached to the scandal tend to resign. For a perfect example, think of Newt Gingrich as Speaker of the House while Bill Clinton was dealing with the Lewinsky scandal. Newt resigned for have an affair, but Bill Clinton remained in office for two more years after perjuring himself, abusing his power as a superior, and, oh yeah, having an affair.

Don't we all know in this post-Clinton world that sex between two consenting adults a private family matter?

Democrats have long and vibrant careers after obvious moral failures, Republicans do not. Why is that? Well...

1. Deny, Deny, Deny, Deny, Apologize
Mark Sanford came right out and admitted to his affair. This is no way to salvage a political career! He should have come out time and time again saying, "I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

Even if you're placed under oath you continue to deny, deny, deny. When you're finally caught, you question the meaning of the questions you are asked. "It depends on what you mean by 'is.'" When you're finally caught beyond denial and rhetorical games, you need to approach your constiuency and beg for forgiveness.

But you never, ever, EVER resign.

Bill Clinton has given politicians the playbook for surviving political death blows, but Republicans won't use it.

Clearly, I don't think Sanford should actually do any of this. The point is that Democrats have survived far worse. But when you're the party of no-values and one of your members has a moral failure, you don't get labeled as a hypocrite. When a Democrat gets caught being a slimeball father, husband, or public servant, they go on to have very fruitful careers (John Edwards notwithstanding). When Republicans are found to be slimeballs their careers are over, as they should be.

If only the Democratic party and Democratic voters had a drop of integrity that Republicans have shown over the years. But I might be asking too much from the party who has never shown they have a moral compass to guide them.

Tuesday, June 23, 2009

HuffPo Asks Staged Question at Obama Presser

Ironic isn't it that as sketchy details are coming out of Iran due to the state-run media, Obama takes a staged question from the Huffington Post about the situation in Iran. Is it time for Americans to join with Iranians and promulgate news via twitter and facebook in order to avoid the state-run filters that are in place within our media too?

And to take a question from HuffPo? How about a question from an actual news organization with some actual unbiased integrity?

"Careful not to slip on our drool sir!"

Oh right.

White House: Cairo Speech Responsible for Iranian Uprising

In one of the most despicable displays of self-promotion, the Obama administration is patting itself on the back for inspiring the Iranian uprising by way of the speech in Cairo. I'm not kidding.

Obama's approach to Iran, including his assertion that the unrest there represents a debate among Iranians unrelated to the United States, is an acknowledgment that a U.S. president's words have a limited ability to alter foreign events in real time and could do more harm than good. But privately Obama advisers are crediting his Cairo speech for inspiring the protesters, especially the young ones, who are now posing the most direct challenge to the republic's Islamic authority in its 30-year history.

I've been looking over the text of the Cairo speech, and I can't find anything that would be so inspiring that people would be willing to challenge the established authority.

Could it be that they were inspired by the blossoming democracy in neighboring Iraq instead? If that were the case, wouldn't it blow Obama's middle-east world view and actually prove Bush right? We can't have that now, can we?

(Thanks to HotAir for the link to the original story.)

Monday, June 22, 2009

Back from Vacation

We had a great trip to the coast last week and while I was gone, the whole world was set ablaze by the Iranian election, I see. I've been trying to catch up on everything that has happened, but so much has happened, it's taking me a while to process everything.

On Friday I had scheduled the final post of the 5-part series on "Things Obama didn't Know (But Should've)" and for some reason blogger failed to publish it.

So here it is: The Number One Thing Obama Didn't Know (But Should've)

Thanks for the comments and for reading all the posts last week in the midst of some major news-happenings. I hope I was able to offer a slight reprieve from all the heavy events of the past week.

On a more serious note:
I know I have had hits from Iran and I have this message for anyone over there who might come across this page -

Freedom to speak one's mind
Freedom to determine one's own course in life
Freedom to hear other points of view
Freedom to democratically elect leaders
Freedom to live a life in peace without fear
Freedom to move, work and play at will
Freedom is worth the cost.
Oceans of blood have been spilled
In the protection of Freedom around the globe
Fathers and mothers have given everything
For their children to breathe Freedom's air
The price of Freedom is high, but never forget
Freedom is worth the cost.

Friday, June 19, 2009

5 Things Obama Didn't Know (But Should've) - Number 1

1. That Blago Would Try to Sell Obama's Senate Seat
Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich recognized that the US Senate seat vacated by Barack Obama was a valuable thing, so he tried to find out just how valuable it was. Unfortunately there was no Craigslist category that would adequately describe a US Senate seat, and denizens of Ebay probably wouldn't have even batted an eye at such a perfectly normal item for sale.

Besides, how do you describe Barack Obama's senate seat in a text ad?

Hardly used. Always present."

No, poor Blago just had to make some phone calls.

And the FBI just had to record some phone calls, cause that's what they do. In this case, the making of and recording of said phone calls overlapped. As a side-note, you already have to be doing some suspicious stuff for the FBI to tap your phone line, so this Blago character was probably in for it before he ever tried to do something as stupid as sell a spot in the senate.

There was speculation that Obama's chief of staff, Rahm Emmanuel was either the person on the other end of the phone calls or was referenced a number of times in the phone calls. Not to worry though; the Obama team did an internal investigation and found no evidence of wrongdoing.

Yeah. The Obama team checked into the actions of the Obama team and discovered that the Obama team had done nothing wrong in the attempted sale of Obama's senate seat. mmm-kay.

This is the fifth part of a five-post series. Be sure to check previous posts from this week as I counted down the 5 Things Obama Didn't Know (But Should've)

Thursday, June 18, 2009

5 Things Obama Didn't Know (But Should've) - Number 2

2. Dude! Where's My Plane?!
Have you ever walked out of the grocery store to discover that you have no clue as to where you parked your car? You start thinking about whether it might be stolen or if you simply forgot where you parked. After 15 minutes of looking, you find the car parked right were you left it, but those minutes of terror are enough to make you vow to always remember where you parked.

Obama had the same thing happen to him. Except in his case, it was not a car, but the most recognizable plane in the world. Recognizable when it's on the ground that is; when it's flying at 1,000 feet over lower Manhattan, it bears a strong resemblance to a hijacked airliner targeting a building.

On the morning of Monday April 27, 2009, workers in Lower Manhattan thought that's what they were witnessing.

What they were actually witnessing was a White House photo op of Air Force One with the Statue of Liberty. Of course, Obama claims he found out about this along with those poor New Yorkers, despite the fact that he's the only person in the world who can fly that plane and there were FAA memos warning the White House that flying a jumbo jet at 1,000 feet over lower Manhattan, might cause a panic.

FAA - 1
Obama - 0

This is the fourth part of a five-post series. Be sure to check back each day this week as I count down the 5 Things Obama Didn't Know (But Should've)

Wednesday, June 17, 2009

5 Things Obama Didn't Know (But Should've) - Number 3

3. That Bill Ayers Was a Domestic Terrorist
We all have that one crazy friend. You know the guy who always tells his story about that drunken night in college that landed him and a few friends in jail for a day or two?

Barack Obama had a similar friend, only his stories included "that one time my best friend and my girlfriend were making a nail bomb and accidentally killed themselves with it." (Seriously.) If the man who described his relationship with you as "neighbors and family friends" has stories like that in his past, it might be a good idea to distance yourself from him, at least for the safety of your family.

Obama had a different approach. He decided to begin his political career in his crazy friend's living room. "Just put that nail bomb on the coffee table. I'll get to it later."

David Axelrod, Obama's political strategist, claimed that Obama had no knowledge of Ayers' "radical past." In Obama's defense though, the wikipedia entry for Bill Ayers refuses to use the word "terrorist" to describe the man who bombed a New York City Police Station, the US Capitol Building, and the Pentagon. And look at his picture:

I mean, there's no way that guy is a terrorist.

This is the third part of a five-post series. Be sure to check back each day this week as I count down the 5 Things Obama Didn't Know (But Should've)

Tuesday, June 16, 2009

5 things Obama Didn't Know (But Should've) - Number 4

4. Tea Parties? What Tea Parties?
Isn't it the worst when you're the last person to find out about a party? It's like the people throwing it didn't really want you there, but when you do finally hear about it the party, you just play it off with a "Well, I can't make it anyway since I already have this... other... thing......"

Then you cry yourself to sleep thinking of how this misunderstanding could have happened just because your friends got a little upset with you because you took their money, spent all of it, then maxed out all of your credit cards, and then went back to your them again begging for just a little bit more to make ends meet.

On April 15, 2009 over half-a-million American citizens gathered at "Tea Parties" in protest of the astronomical spending taking place by the Federal Government. When reporters asked for the White House's response to the nation-wide protests, the President stated that he was unaware of any tea parties. Ohh... I guess his invitation got lost in the mail.

But shouldn't the President at least be aware that a group of people the size of Denver is rising up in peaceful protest of his policies? Is he really that out of touch, or he was just playing down the enormity of the event. "Umm... Yeah.. I have something to do that day anyway..."

This is the second part of a five-post series. Be sure to check back each day this week as I count down the 5 Things Obama Didn't Know (But Should've)

Monday, June 15, 2009

5 Things Obama Didn't Know (But Should've) - Number 5

5. What he would do with Gitmo prisoners
One time my wife and I obtained a new sofa because our old sofa had gotten to the point where it was becomming unsafe for the creatures which had taken up residence in it over the years. We hauled the new sofa up to our second story apartment, brought it in the door, moved it into the living room and discovered that we now had two sofas in our tiny living room.

Being a model of forward-thinking I decided to just call a local charity to come take the sofa. Two days later the guys from the charity arrived, looked at the sofa and said, "We can't take that." Yes, the poor didn't want So I had to figure out what to do with the thing on my own.

The same thing happened to Barack Obama just two days into his presidency, only instead of sofas, it was dangerous international terrorists. On January 22, 2009 President Obama signed the executive order that would call for the close of the Guantanamo Bay detention center. After signing the order, he turned to Greg Craig and asked, "Is there a separate executive order for how we will dispose of the detainees?... We will be setting up a process."

Crap. Now what do I do with this ratty old sofa? I know. I'll ship it to someone else. Maybe Germany wants it? No? Maybe France would... No? Hmmm. I bet Palau will it if we tack on $200 million!

This is the first part of a five-post series. Be sure to check back each day this week as I count down the 5 Things Obama Didn't Know (But Should've)

Even Advocates Need a Break From Time to Time

I'm headed to the coast this week for some vacation, and I know what you're thinking, "Why don't you just drive your SUV around the block a few hundred times and the global warming will bring the coast to you!" 

Believe me, I did consider that, but I am driving my SUV to the coast, so the way I figure it, if the global warming alarmists are correct, I won't have to drive quite as far as the map shows.

You're probably also thinking, "Oh no! That means Advocate won't be here to make his remarkably bland remarks on politics all week! Whatever shall we do?"

Not to fear! I am leaving you with a countdown: 5 Things Obama Didn't Know (But Should've)

The posts will appear each morning at 6:00 am (central) so they should be posted several hours before any liberals will be awake enough to read them. Be sure to check in each day and if you feel up to it, leave a comment letting me know what you think.

I may try to post an update or two while I'm away, but I don't know what kind of internet access I'll have. You can also keep an eye open for updates on twitter!

See you all next week, assuming the republic stands. 

Friday, June 12, 2009

Out for the Day

I'm going to be away from my computer for the day today, so there won't be any updates.

I'll have some new stuff for you next week, assuming the republic stands. ;)

Enjoy your Friday everyone!

Thursday, June 11, 2009

Holocaust Shooter May be a Democrat - Liberal Narrative Crumbles

So quick they are to blame every nut-job shooting on talk radio and Fox News, the liberals began calling James von Brunn a "right-wing extremist" before anything was known about him.

Politico reports von Brunn may have also targeted the conservative Weekly Standard.

And Macmind has an unconfirmed report that von Brunn is a registered Democrat in Maryland.

So... Ummm... Yeah, he sounds just like every Limbaugh-listening, Fox-News-watching, conservative I've ever met.

Is Obama to Blame for Shooting at DC Holocaust Museum?

As I stated before after the murder of Abortionist George Tiller, the liberals love to blame someone other than the person who pulled trigger. In the case of the shooting that occurred at the Holocaust Museum in Washington DC which resulted in the death of a security guard named Stephen T. Johns. Liberals, once again, cast blame for the shooting on you guessed it! Talk radio and Fox News!

Huffington Post:
So why the recent spate of deadly right-wing hate crimes? As Salon.com's Joan Walsh cited, it could be in no small part due to the incendiary rhetoric of talking heads like Bill O'Reilly and Limbaugh, who've been accused of fanning the flames of hate with their inciteful on-air rabble-rousing.

"If I were a marginal, unemployed, angry, racist white man right now, I'd be hearing a lot of mainstream conservative support for my point of view. Can that help create a climate for more violence? I don't know. I hope not, but I don't know."
Let's apply the method the left uses to cast blame for a terrible crime onto someone other than the person who actually committed the crime.

In Cairo last week President Obama said this
Six million Jews were killed -- more than the entire Jewish population of Israel today. Denying that fact is baseless, it is ignorant, and it is hateful. Threatening Israel with destruction -- or repeating vile stereotypes about Jews -- is deeply wrong, and only serves to evoke in the minds of Israelis this most painful of memories while preventing the peace that the people of this region deserve.

On the other hand, it is also undeniable that the Palestinian people -- Muslims and Christians -- have suffered in pursuit of a homeland. For more than 60 years they've endured the pain of dislocation. Many wait in refugee camps in the West Bank, Gaza, and neighboring lands for a life of peace and security that they have never been able to lead. They endure the daily humiliations -- large and small -- that come with occupation. So let there be no doubt: The situation for the Palestinian people is intolerable. And America will not turn our backs on the legitimate Palestinian aspiration for dignity, opportunity, and a state of their own.
In short: Millions of Jews died in the holocaust, but on the other hand, the Jews are similarly oppressing the Palestinians.

Could it be that James Von Brunn heard Barack Obama's speech in Cairo. Did he hear Obama compare the Holocaust to what the Jews are doing to Palestinians? Did he then determine that President Obama confirmed what he already believed about the Jews being a blight to humanity? After all, in Obama's own words, the Jews are responsible for the most recent Holocaust: that which has been on going for 60 years in Palestine.

In a symbolic act, Von Brunn then attacks the DC Holocaust Museum in response to President Obama fomenting his already deeply rooted hatred of the Jews.

Neither talk radio nor Fox News have ever been anti-semitic, and they've certainly never said anything as anti-semitic as what Barack Obama said in Cairo. So when a man attacks a monument in remembrance of Jewish suffering one week later, it seems to me Obama carries the blame on this one too.

So if you're one of those liberals who is inclined to blame someone other than the person who committed the crime, there's your connection. If you're all set to blame Fox News, blame talk radio, or wonder aloud "what made them crash planes into our buildings," then the only person to blame for the attack on the holocaust museum is the man who spoke so prominently against the Jewish people less than one week earlier.

As for me, like I said in the Tiller case, I blame the man who pulled the trigger, unlike those liberals who can't bring themselves to do so.

(Thanks to meanolmeany for some direction on this.)

Palin Rep Ups the Rhetoric in Letterman Row: "It would be wise to keep Willow away."

The Palin spokesperson turned things up a notch in response to Letterman's "apology" and request that Palin appear on his show. According to Fox News:
"The Palins have no intention of providing a rating's boost for David Letterman by appearing on his show," the Alaska governor's rep said in a statement to FOXNews.com. "Plus, it would be wise to keep Willow away from David Letterman."

Bloggers have been (accurately) insinuating that Letterman is a dirty-old-man, but for the representative of a sitting governor and potential presidential candidate to suggest that Letterman might be a pedophile might be crossing the line.

They're probably better off allowing bloggers and talk radio do the dirty work of accusations or insinuations while they approach the situation from another angle.

I do like the rep pointing out Letterman's desire to use Palin for a ratings boost, though.

Do you think Palin's rep pushed it a little too far, or did Letterman have it coming?

Wednesday, June 10, 2009

Updated: Letterman: 14-Year-Olds being Raped: Not Funny; 18-Year-Olds Being Raped: Comedy Gold

Dirty-Old-Man-Letterman is now trying to cover his tracks by claiming that his joke about 14-year-old Willow Palin being raped by Alex Rodriguez, was actually meant to be about 18-year-old Bristol Palin.

Hot Air links to this article on Entertainment Weekly
Camp Palin apparently took the joke to be a crack against Palin's 14-year-old daughter Willow, who had recently attended a Yankees game, but Letterman insisted today that the real target was 18-year-old daughter Bristol.

“We were, as we often do, making jokes about people in the news and we made some jokes about Sarah Palin and her daughter [Bristol]... and now they’re upset with me…” Letterman says on tonight's show. "These are not jokes made about her 14-year-old daughter. I would never, never make jokes about raping or having sex of any description with a 14-year-old girl.... Am I guilty of poor taste? Yes. Did I suggest that it was okay for her 14-year-old daughter to be having promiscuous sex? No." Saying he hopes he's "cleared part of this up," Letterman extended an invitation to Palin to come on the show as a guest.

Ummm... Okay, but Bristol wasn't at the baseball game and Willow was, so to joke about someone who wasn't at the ballpark that day doesn't make a whole lot of sense.

And another thing: Letterman asks, "Did I suggest that it was okay for her 14-year-old daughter to be having promiscuous sex? No."

What Letterman described was not a "14-year-old having promiscuous sex." It was describing a 33-year-old baseball player having sex with a 14-year-old girl, which, according to New York law and the rest of the non-dirt-bag-comic world, is an offense punishable by 7 years in prison. This was not a description of "promiscous sex;" it was statutory rape.

And I hope that Palin does not go on this show. Her presence would bring him ratings that might stop his barely beating heart and force his other foot into the grave.

Real Clear Politics has the video of the "apology."

Update: Good for her. Palin "isn't taking Letterman's ratings bait."

Letterman Jokes About the Rape of a 14-Year-Old Girl

You might be thinking he's talking about Bristol Palin (as if joking about the rape of an 18-year-old is somehow better), but Bristol wasn't at the baseball game, Willow was.

The question is, will Letterman appear on Olbermann's "worst person in the world" list? If not, does that mean Olbermann approves of the sexual assault of 14-year-old girls too?

Islamists Answer Obama's Rhetoric by Blowing Up a Hotel

Mere days after Obama described Islam in this way "Islam has demonstrated through words and deeds the possibilities of religious tolerance and racial equality," Islamists prove him wrong by blowing up a hotel in Pah-key-stahn that is frequented by foreigners. So far the death toll is 16 with an additional 70 wounded. Both numbers may rise as the search for survivors continues

In the realm of international politics this is equivalent to sitting down for peace talks where you make your plea for a treaty and the members of the opposing side fire a bullet mere inches from your head. It should be clear that the call for peace in this fight is one-sided.

It should be equally clear that peace will only be achieved when the militant elements of Islamic fundamentalism are rooted out and brought to justice.

Two big questions remain:
1) How will Obama respond to this attack considering it flies in the face of everything he talked about in his speech in Cairo?
2) How can we better pronounce the names of Middle Eastern places and people groups so as not to provoke these types of attacks?

Everyone together now, let's practice: Pah-key-stahn, Tah-li-bahn, Repeat!

Update: Dems in NY Senate Lock Doors Not Allowing Work to Proceed

I briefly wrote about this the other day, but on Monday Republicans surprisingly took control of the New York State Senate. What they failed to recognize was that their Democratic counterparts are actually a bunch of 5-year-old school girls (with my apologies to 5-year-old school girls everywhere).

When they arrived at the Senate chambers on Tuesday morning, the Republican Senators found that the doors to the chambers had been locked. No word on whether there was a note stating that the Democrats had, in fact, taken their ball and gone home, but I'm looking into it.

Republicans decried the move as unconstitutional. Befuddled Democrats, apparently unfamiliar with the document, responded by saying, "Unconsti-what?"

As a native Texan, these kinds of things are not that strange for us. A few years ago our legislature was set to vote on a redistricting plan. When it came time to vote 51 Democrats failed to show up, which stopped the vote for lack of a quorum. They didn't just fail to show up though. They had fled 300 miles north to Oklahoma for 5 days. Two months later, when the vote came up again, 11 of them did the same thing, only this time they fled 700 miles to Albuquerque, New Mexico and stayed for 6 weeks!

Moral of the story: When they don't get their way, Democrats reveal themselves to be the whining little crybabies they actually are.

Monday, June 8, 2009

4 Signs That the Age of Obama May be Coming to an End

Just a quick run down of this day's events should have any Republican in breathless elation.

1. Republicans Take Control of NY Senate

In a move that would make the most shrewd parliamentarian proud, Republicans have, once again, taken control of the New York Senate! Seriously. Two Democrats, Pedro Espada Jr. of the Bronx and Hiram Monserrate of Queens both decided to join the Republican party. The New York Times, of course, calls it a "coup." The rest of the free world calls it "democracy," a concept foreign to the New York Times.

2. SCOTUS Puts Stay on Obama's Chrysler Plans
It's not clear what effect it will actually have, but Justice Ginsberg has put a temporary stay on Obama's plans for Chrysler. She may have simply delayed the inevitable sale of Chrysler, or the court could have created the time necessary for Fiat to pull out of the deal on June 15. What is important is that Obama's over-reaching is meeting the wrath of checks and balances. Let's see where it leads.

3. Obama Lags in Polls Concerning Federal Spending
A new Gallup poll shows that most Americans disapprove of Barack Obama when it comes to federal dollars and deficit spending. From Gallup:
While 67% of Americans view President Barack Obama favorably, his overall job approval rating and his ratings on specific areas are less positive. At the low end of the spectrum, only 45% of Americans approve of Obama's handling of federal spending, and 46% of his handling of the federal budget deficit.

4. Americans Trust GOP over Democrats on 6 of 10 Major Issues

Rusmussen reports that voters trust Republicans over Democrats on 6 out of 10 major issues. The following are quotes from Rasmussen's findings.
  • Non-affiliated voters trust the Republicans on ecnomoic issues by a two-to-one margin
  • Republicans also now hold a six-point lead on the issue of government ethics and corruption, the second most important issue to all voters and the top issue among unaffiliated voters.
  • The GOP now holds a 51% to 36% lead on [national security.]
  • [Republicans] also lead on the war in Iraq 45% to 37%
  • Republicans lead the Democrats on immigration for the third straight month, pulling ahead to a 35% to 29% advantage on the issue.
  • On taxes, the GOP leads the Democrats for the fifth straight month, 44% to 39%.
Democrats lead in the areas of health care, education, and social security and the parties are tied at 41% on the issue of abortion.

So there are four beacons of hope in this hopenchange era. Perhaps they are signs of change on the horizon.

Get ready, 2010 because the Republicans aren't dead. We're just reorganizing for a death-blow to the Democratic establishment.

Obama Administration: 9.4% Jobless Rate is a GOOD Sign?

On Fox News Sunday this week, Dr. Austan Goolsbee, Obama's economic advisor, stated:
The economy has clearly gotten substantially worse from the initial predictions that were being made not just by the White House but by all of the private sector.

In this report, minus 345,000 is a terrible number, but it's a substantial improvement from what the job losses have been. That's the smallest job loss since September of last year. So it's encouraging, but really bad.
Aside from the fact that Goolsbee uses one of the deflection tactics the Obama administration is famous for, he actually has the nerve to claim that 345,000 lost jobs actually point to an improving economy?

The Corner comments:
Watching Fox News Sunday, I caught a panel on which Obama economic advisor Austin Goolsbee conceded that the administration had previously predicted unemployment would top out at around 8%, that it was now up to 9.4%, and that double-digit unemployment was a distinct possibility in the near future. Goolsbee didn't resort to the administrations's blather about "saving or creating jobs," but he did repeat its fustian about how last month's loss of 345,000 jobs (resulting in a half percentage point jump in the jobless rate) is somehow good news because it beat predictions (I don't recall him saying whose) of even more dire loss numbers. It made me wonder why, if those predictions either existed or were serious, the Obama administration would have previously predicted that unemployment would top out at 8%?
So you can either listen to Goolsbee talk about how the "smallest job less since September," or you can look at this chart comparing expected jobless rates versus the actual jobless rate. (Thanks: Innocent Bystanders)

Saturday, June 6, 2009

65 Years After D-Day, Google Honors... Tetris?

The words of the Dallas local radio host, Mark Davis "Good God, man!" To get the full effect, you have to say those words in the most dramatic, Shatneresque voice you can muster when you click on your homepage to see this.

On the 65th anniversary of D-Day when around 10,000 allied forces lost their lives, Google chooses to honor the second-greatest time-waster for corporations world wide: Tetris. (The number one greatest time-waster is, of course, meetings.)

I'm determined to be optimistic about Google's choice though. I've decided that the little green bar represents the allied forces invading occupied France (represented by the yellow pieces, of course.) The red bricks are our allied paratroopers making headway on disrupting the German defenses, seen in blue. And those light blue...

Okay this isn't working. How about this solution:

HEY GOOGLE! Get down on your feeble, vegetarian, pansy knees and THANK GOD the United States in 1944 wasn't filled with people like you!

Video: Omaha Beach or Obama Beach?

I guess Saving Private Ryan was not among those DVD's President Obama gave to British Prime Minister Gordon Brown, otherwise he would have known that there was no beach code-named "Obama." Was this a slip of the tongue or does the TOTUS have special agents working deep within the British speech-writing system in efforts to truly establish his faithful friend's place in history?

Friday, June 5, 2009

Video: Steven Crowder Gets RIPPED by Olbermann

I know what you're thinking, "What happened to the bed sheet and the $5 microphone he was using?" Well, in short, Steven sold out.

Just kidding, Steven. PJTV is a a huge step up and the video looks great! Keep up the good work!

Sotomayor's "Wise Latina" Speech WAS her Do-Over

Last week, in Rumpelstiltskin-like fashion, Obama joined the White House's attempt to spin Judge Sotomayor's racist "wise Latina" comments into something less toxic. (Spinning it into gold was way too much to ask!)

From the NYT:
“I’m sure she would have restated it,” Mr. Obama said in an interview with NBC News. “But if you look in the entire sweep of the essay that she wrote, what’s clear is that she was simply saying that her life experiences will give her information about the struggles and hardships that people are going through — that will make her a good judge.”
Obama was referencing a 2001 speech at Berkley at which Sotomayor proclaimed "a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would more often than not reach a better conclusion than a white male who hasn't lived that life."

But Sotomayor's Berkley speech wasn't an isolated incident. In a 1994 speech Sotomayor said
"Justice O’Connor has often been cited as saying that “a wise old man and a wise old woman reach the same conclusion in dueling cases. I am not so sure Justice O’Connor is the author of that line since Professor Resnik attributes the line to Supreme Court Justice Coyle. I am not so sure that I agree with the statement. First, if Prof. Martha Minnow is correct, there can never be a universal definition of ‘wise.’ Second, I would hope that a wise woman with the richness of her experience would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion."
She used almost the exact terms in a 2002 speech to the Princeton Club, Sotomayor said,
Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences
would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion.
At a 2003 speech to Stetson Hall law school she said
"Second, I would hope that a wise Latina woman with the richness of her experiences would, more often than not, reach a better conclusion."
Allahpundit at HotAir.com explains the progression of Sotomayor's speeches eloquently:
"Evidently, the idea that her biology makes her a superior judge has been with her for decades. The only wrinkle: In 1994 she insisted it was her gender that made her “better” and by 2001 that notion had evolved to include race as well. Nice to know that her progressivism became more 'sophisticated' over time."
These speeches prove two things. One, there is no question that this racist meant to say exactly what she said regardless of how the White House tries to spin it.

And two, Sotomayor is devoid of creativity in the realm of speech-making.

Thursday, June 4, 2009

Now That We're a Muslim Nation, I have a Few Questions

Now that we're a Muslim nation...

... do we get to drill for our own oil?
... do we have a right to nuclear energy?
... do we get to carry rocket launchers in the street?
... can we throw shoes at our world leaders?
... can we threaten to blow stuff up if someone suggests we're not a peace-loving people?
... can I mount a .50 cal on the back of my pickup?
... do we have to start oppressing women or is that only optional?
... will our leader grow a mustache?

It's coming along. Give it a few weeks and that baby will really fill out.

... do we have to start blaming the Jews for everything or does George W. Bush still get that honor?
... will our President inexplicably fire rifles into the air at major speeches?

... does the phrase "death to America" still apply, and if so, how often are we required to shout it at the top of our lungs?

What questions do you have? Leave a comment and let me know!

Who Opposed a Free Palestine? Egypt and Jordan That's Who!

In effort to win the hearts and minds of the Arab people. [Reads White House description of speech again.]

Sorry let me try that again.

In effort to win the hearts and minds of the Muslim people, President Obama outlined his case for an independent Palestinian state.
But if we see this conflict only from one side or the other, then we will be blind to the truth: the only resolution is for the aspirations of both sides to be met through two states, where Israelis and Palestinians each live in peace and security.
It remains unclear, however, how this will win the hearts and minds of the people of Jordan and Egypt. After the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Jordan took control of the West Bank and Egypt controlled the Gaza Strip.

The West Bank
This was the perfect opportunity to establish an independent Palestinian nation. Arab nations controlled the land and began to establish provisional governments, but rather than allow the Palestinians to form their own state, Jordan did something crazy.

They annexed the West Bank.

Yeah. Jordan controlled the West Bank and could have granted independence to the Palestinians, but instead Jordan said, "Nope! You're coming with us!" The Palestinian people had no choice. Overnight the Palestinian people became Jordanian.

Wait, I always heard the Jews were oppressing the Palestinians. Depending on who you read, that may be the case, but Jordan was the first nation to stand in the way of an independent Palestinian State in the West Bank and continued to control the Palestinian people until the Six Day War.

Then along comes Egypt.

The Gaza Strip
After the 1948 Arab-Israeli War, Egypt took control of the Gaza Strip which also created the perfect climate in which to establish an independent Palestinian State. Egypt, instead formed the "All-Palestine Government" which had precisely zero authority in Gaza.

Egypt disbanded the All-Palestine Government in 1959 in order to grant the Palestinian people their independence. Right?

No. Egypt disbanded the puppet government in 1959, but refused to grant independence to the Palestinian people in the Gaza Strip. They also refused to grant the Palestinians Egyptian citizenship.

The Six-Day War
After Israel finished its superior thrashing of the entire Middle East in the 1967 Six-Day War, Israel controlled the Golan Heights, the West Bank, and the entire Sinai Peninsula. But remember, these were not Palestinian regions. They were portions of Egypt and Jordan since those mean ol' Muslims had been unwilling to grant the Palestinian people independence for almost 20 years!

It was only after the Jews controlled the so-called Palestinian regions that the Muslim world began to cry foul and demand recognition of Palestine as a free nation.

So when Barack Obama parrots the cries for an independent Palestine, he does so in attempts to appease the hypocritical Muslim nations that refused the concept for a quarter century when Egypt and Jordan could have created an independent Palestine with the stroke of a pen.

I'm not saying the two-state solution is a bad idea, I'm just saying Israel is not to blame for hindering that process. To major players in the Muslim world, Egypt and Jordan, own this problem as they now use the Palestinians as political pawns in the game of international politics.

Obama: I Can See Mecca From My House!

Okay, I fibbed in the title a little bit. He didn't say that, but it what he did say was just as stupid.

He claimed we're one of the largest Muslim nations in the world.

Just look at these stats from ChurchvState.

So, yeah. I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for SNL to use my "I can see Mecca from my house!" line, but someone should point out that we may have elected a political pretty-boy devoid of intellectual prowess who just makes stuff up when the teleprompter doesn't feed him his lines.

Wednesday, June 3, 2009

Brian Williams Bows Before King Obama

That is, after all, the appropriate way to say good night to the leader of a Muslim nation.

(Thanks: HotAir.com)

WSJ: The Religious Right Did Not Kill George Tiller

James Kirchick has an opinion piece at WSJ that is the best defense of the pro-life movement I've seen in the wake of the murder of George Tiller. Definitely a must-read.

The Religious Right Did Not Kill George Tiller

Will the crazy liberals read this and be changed? Of course not because they are driven by blind ideology and the politics of personal destruction, but given the climate we are facing, Kirchick's sanity offers a welcome solace.

Tuesday, June 2, 2009

Appeasement Means Hoping Iran Nukes You Last

Today President Obama indicated that Iran, the nation literally floating on oil, has a right to develop nuclear energy.

"President Barack Obama suggested that Iran may have some right to nuclear energy provided it proves by the end of the year that its aspirations are peaceful."

Right. Throw in the Sudetenland and you've got a deal!

Then he literally invited Iranian officials to July 4th celebrations at our embassies.

Call me old-fashioned, but I'm not sure it's wise to invite a nation with nuclear aspirations to a barbeque. And if you do, DO NOT serve kosher foods. The Iranians might think you're hinting at something.

Monday, June 1, 2009

Good Company: Reagan Also Equated Abortion and Slavery

I totally didn't know about this when I wrote my post on Abortion Abolitionism, but Ronald Reagan had a similar idea back in 1983. You can't blame me. I was only 3 years old when he wrote it!

I think the argument favoring an Abolitionist-style movement to combat the horrors of abortion would be a powerful way to illustrate the moral and social implications abortion has on our country. Slavery was abolished through decades of abolitionist protests and writings. The civil rights movement was won because of the non-violent protests by Dr. King and others like him.

Abortion, likewise, must be placed upon the ash-heap of history alongside the rest of mankind's most despicable atrocities.

Anyway. Here is a news article that describes what he wrote, and I have discovered the text of the article he presented to The Human Life Foundation in the Spring of 1983 shortly after the tenth anniversary of Roe v. Wade.

Here are a few choice sections from Reagan's article entitled Abortion and the Conscience of a Nation. (note: emphasis mine)

Despite the formidable obstacles before us, we must not lose heart. This is not the first time our country has been divided by a Supreme Court decision that denied the value of certain human lives. The Dred Scott decision of 1857 was not overturned in a day, or a year, or even a decade. At first, only a minority of Americans recognized and deplored the moral crisis brought about by denying the full humanity of our black brothers and sisters; but that minority persisted in their vision and finally prevailed. They did it by appealing to the hearts and minds of their countrymen, to the truth of human dignity under God. From their example, we know that respect for the sacred value of human life is too deeply engrained in the hearts of our people to remain forever suppressed. But the great majority of the American people have not yet made their voices heard, and we cannot expect them to—any more than the public voice arose against slavery—until the issue is clearly framed and presented.

The real question today is not when human life begins, but, What is the value of human life? The abortionist who reassembles the arms and legs of a tiny baby to make sure all its parts have been torn from its mother's body can hardly doubt whether it is a human being. The real question for him and for all of us is whether that tiny human life has a God-given right to be protected by the law— the same right we have.

Here, Reagan invokes the case of "Baby Doe," an Indiana child who was born in 1982 with Down's Syndrome. The parents refused to seek treatment for the child and the courts eventually ruled to allow the child to starve to death in the hospital.

What more dramatic confirmation could we have of the real issue than the Baby Doe case in Bloomington, Indiana? The death of that tiny infant tore at the hearts of all Americans because the child was undeniably a live human being — one lying helpless before the eyes of the doctors and the eyes of the nation. The real issue for the courts was not whether Baby Doe was a human being. The real issue was whether to protect the life of a human being who had Down's Syndrome, who would probably be mentally handicapped, but who needed a routine surgical procedure to unblock his esophagus and allow him to eat. A doctor testified to the presiding judge that, even with his physical problem corrected, Baby Doe would have a "non-existent" possibility for "a minimally adequate quality of life"—in other words, that retardation was the equivalent of a crime deserving the death penalty. The judge let Baby Doe starve and die, and the Indiana Supreme Court sanctioned his decision.

Next, Reagan calls upon the founding documents to remind the reader of the arguments used to combat slavery and how similar arguments could be made to combat abortion.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

We fought a terrible war to guarantee that one category of mankind— black people in America—could not be denied the inalienable rights with which their Creator endowed them. The great champion of the sanctity of all human life in that day, Abraham Lincoln, gave us his assessment of the Declaration's purpose. Speaking of the framers of that noble document, he said:

This was their majestic interpretation of the economy of the Universe. This was their lofty, and wise, and noble understanding of the justice of the Creator to His creatures. Yes, gentlemen, to all his creatures, to the whole great family of man. In their enlightened belief, nothing stamped with the divine image and likeness was sent into the world to be trodden on. . . They grasped not only the whole race of man then living, but they reached forward and seized upon the farthest posterity. They erected a beacon to guide their children and their children's children, and the countless myriads who should inhabit the earth in other ages.

He warned also of the danger we would face if we closed our eyes to the value of life in any category of human beings:

I should like to know if taking this old Declaration of Independence, which declares that all men are equal upon principle and making exceptions to it where will it stop. If one man says it does not mean a Negro, why not another say it does not mean some other man?

When Congressman John A. Bingham of Ohio drafted the Fourteenth Amendment to guarantee the rights of life, liberty, and property to all human beings, he explained that all are "entitled to the protection of American law, because its divine spirit of equality declares that all men are created equal." He said the right guaranteed by the amendment would therefore apply to "any human being." Justice William Brennan, writing in another case decided only the year before Roe v. Wade, referred to our society as one that "strongly affirms the sanctity of life."

Here, Reagan uses the example of babies who survive abortions and asks how anyone can deny them equal protection under the law? I wonder what Reagan would say were he here to see a president of the United States who 3 times voted against the Born-Alive Infant Protection Act and similar laws that would protect children who survived attempted abortions.

Another example: two years ago, the Philadelphia Inquirer ran a Sunday special supplement on "The Dreaded Complication." The "dreaded complication" referred to in the article—the complication feared by doctors who perform abortions—is the survival of the child despite all the painful attacks during the abortion procedure. Some unborn children do survive the late-term abortions the Supreme Court has made legal. Is there any question that these victims of abortion deserve our attention and protection? Is there any question that those who don't survive were living human beings before they were killed?

Late-term abortions, especially when the baby survives, but is then killed by starvation, neglect, or suffocation, show once again the link between abortion and infanticide. The time to stop both is now. As my Administration acts to stop infanticide, we will be fully aware of the real issue that underlies the death of babies before and soon after birth.
Reagan, again, returns to the slavery angle citing the long-time prayers and pressure by William Wilberforce that eventually led to the end of slavery in Britain.
I have often said we need to join in prayer to bring protection to the unborn. Prayer and action are needed to uphold the sanctity of human life. I believe it will not be possible to accomplish our work, the work of saving lives, "without being a soul of prayer." The famous British Member of Parliament, William Wilberforce, prayed with his small group of influential friends, the "Clapham Sect," for decades to see an end to slavery in the British empire. Wilberforce led that struggle in Parliament, unflaggingly, because he believed in the sanctity of human life. He saw the fulfillment of his impossible dream when Parliament outlawed slavery just before his death.

Let his faith and perseverance be our guide. We will never recognize the true value of our own lives until we affirm the value in the life of others, a value of which Malcolm Muggeridge says:. . . however low it flickers or fiercely burns, it is still a Divine flame which no man dare presume to put out, be his motives ever so humane and enlightened."

Reagan closes the article calling upon the memory of Lincoln and the work of the Abolitionist movement in the 19th century.

Abraham Lincoln recognized that we could not survive as a free land when some men could decide that others were not fit to be free and should therefore be slaves. Likewise, we cannot survive as a free nation when some men decide that others are not fit to live and should be abandoned to abortion or infanticide. My Administration is dedicated to the preservation of America as a free land, and there is no cause more important for preserving that freedom than affirming the transcendent right to life of all human beings, the right without which no other rights have any meaning.

These are just excerpts, you should really read the whole article if you have the time.

Do you think the analogy works? Is abortion the moral battleground of the 21st century that slavery was in the 19th century?

Who's to Blame for Tiller's Murder? Obama or Roe vs. Wade?

Liberals love to play the game of blaming someone other than the actual murderer for the crimes they commit. Like in April when that dude killed those cops? That was Glenn Beck's fault for some reason. 9/11? Blame Western extravagance. Columbine? Blame the act of bullying.

You get the picture.

This time around, even though the could have instantly blamed pro-lifers, God, and conservatives (and already started via twitter), their gut reaction was to go for the big-boys again. This time blame has been placed on Bill O'Reilly for a piece he did a while back on George Tiller's practice of performing late-term abortions.

But I thought this rabbit hole must go deeper than the top rated cable news host in America. It just can't be that simple.

So liberals, if we're not going to blame the actual psycho who pulled the trigger, let's see who could really be at fault here.

At the Saddleback Presidential Forum, then Senator Obama said this:
"The fact is that although we have had a president who is opposed to abortion over the last eight years, abortions have not gone down and that is something we have to address."

In his next breath he said this:
"I am in favor, for example, of limits on late-term abortions..."

Could it be that these remarks pushed Scott Roeder into committing this crime? It's been 10 years since an abortionist was murdered. Obama makes those comments, gets elected and less than five months later this horrific event occurs? Are we to also believe it's only a coincidence that Obama specifically mentioned late-term abortions and Roeder chose Tiller, a doctor known for performing late-term abortions, as his victim?

Or perhaps it was the result of remarks made over 35 years ago by Harold Andrew Blackmun. You might know him better as Justice Harry Blackmun, who wrote the Supreme Court's opinion in deciding Roe v. Wade.

Just think, if Roe had gone the other way, literally millions of people would be alive today who are no longer with us, and among those would be Dr. George Tiller.

So, you liberals who are so fond of casting the blame of a heinous deed onto someone other than the criminal himself, there's your list of suspects as I see it.

As for me, I'll just blame the man who pulled the trigger.