Here's the 2009 version of 'Getting Taken For A Ride'

Amusement Park:



Hat tip:Power Line.

So THIS is how Dems/Lefties/'Progressives' can rationalize almost anything!

Once you learn how to do it physically, the verbal contortions required to rationalize cherished Libthink agenda item talking points is a snap!

And they re-enforce this virtually every time they open their mouths!

Amazing!

How DO they continue to do it?

#

Wheel of Fortune: 'Scientific Consensus on Anthropogenic Global Warming' version

They think they're going to solve the puzzle, but the rest of us know that the next spin will bankrupt ALL of us.

#

'Empathy', and Supreme Court nominees

John Hinderaker:

"Barack Obama famously says that a key quality he wants in a Supreme Court justice is 'empathy.' As many commentators have observed, 'empathy' is really a cover for lawlessness. But it's actually worse than that, because empathy, as that term is used by Obama, is inherently selective.

Does Obama mean that his nominee will have empathy for the unborn? Well, no. He doesn't have in mind that kind of empathy. How about empathy for taxpayers and small business owners? No, that isn't exactly the right sort of empathy either.

Obama's favorite example of the right kind of empathy is Lily Ledbetter. As Paul has pointed out, Lily Ledbetter was a liar with a lousy case that was properly barred by the statute of limitations. What 'empathy' is at work here? Empathy with unions and, perhaps even more important, the people who profit more than anyone else when lousy cases are kept alive in the courts--plaintiffs' lawyers, among the largest contributors to the Democratic Party.

What Barack Obama means by an 'empathetic' judge is one who has his or her thumb on the scale on behalf of politically favored groups. This is the opposite of the traditional view that a judge should be neutral, i.e., have equal empathy for all litigants."

#

Are the Chrysler dealership closings tainted by political payback?

Gateway Pundit wants to know. You should, too.

Noteworthy:

Again here is what we know so far--

** Earlier it was reported that the Obama Administration may have targeted GOP donors in deciding which Chrysler dealerships would have to close their doors.

** Later it was discovered that a Big Dem Donor Group was allowed to keep all 6 Chrysler dealerships open.... And, their local competitors were eliminated.

** The Auto Task Force, which includes Obama cabinet members, is reportedly calling the shots on which dealerships will close and stay open.

** Steven Rattner leads The Auto Task Force and is married to the former National Finance Chair of Democratic Party, Maureen White.

** The closings in several instances appear to benefit Dem donating dealers where local GOP-linked dealerships were closed.

** Even Rep. Vern Buchanan (R-Fla) lost his Chrysler dealership in Florida and found out from a colleague on the House floor.

** Lithia Motor Group's owners gave $15,000 to two Democrat candidates and support nationalized healthcare. They will likely lose just two of 29 dealerships and gain 5 more.

** One report claims the odds that these Chrysler closings occurred without partisan bias are less than 1%.

** After closing the 789 dealerships Chrysler announced that they are already looking to open new franchises.

** Chrysler dealership owners donated to Republicans over Democrats by a ratio of 76% to 24%.

Very interesting.

If the accusations are true, would anyone really be surprised, given the Obamanation's record so far?

#

Let's look at the Sotomayor nomination from another angle

Andrew Cline, at American Spectator:

"Take everything that is known about Sonia Sotomayor and change three factors -- her race, sex, and family's initial socioeconomic status -- and the points cited in praise of her selection would be diminished by more than 50 percent.

The complimentary commentary would be reduced to: Mr. Sotomayor graduated summa cum laude from Princeton and has had a breadth of experience over his lengthy legal career. That's it."

He concludes:

"Were Sotomayor a white male who grew up in economic comfort, but who had exactly the same legal experience and judicial record, would the praise of Obama's choice be so widespread and so fawning?

Not a chance.

More likely, these same writers would find Sotomayor lacking in qualifications. And that says a lot, none of it good, about how the left views the role of the courts in this country. "

#

'Skeletons in the Closet'

So which agenda item is Obama distracting you from with his SCOTUS nomination?

I'd say none of the below. My money's on the illegal immigration amnesty scam.

Added benefit of this distraction from the Obamanation:

"An aside, won’t Pelosi be happy to finally be off the main-stage - note how Obama was more than happy to let her sweat that out on her own. That was unexpected bonus distractions for Obama. [Troll/Moby notice: EIT's are NOT torture]"

#

Here's perhaps THE most important reason that Sotomayor is dangerous to our well being.

From the nominee:

"I have absolutely no idea about the science of global warming .....But if the science is right, we have relegated ourselves to killing the world in the foreseeable future. Not in centuries to come but in the very near future."

This is a quote of a comment she made from the bench on a case heard in the 2nd US Circuit Court of Appeals

People who think that way are VERY scary indeed. And VERY shallow to boot.

#

'Narcissus And Echo: Obama And The Mainstream Media'

For some time now, it that the relationship between the Teleprompted-in-Chief and his fawning acolytes (carefully disguised at "The Media") has been an almost incestuous adoration.

But Robert Bowie Johnson, Jr. sees it from a different perspective. He says the relationship between the Obamanator and his Tank Media PR team resembles one of Greek mythology.

Noteworthy:

"It is troubling that our president is a pathological narcissist caught up in the thought patterns of Darwin, Marx, and Alinsky. Even more troubling is the fact that the Mainstream Media (MSM), suffering from an Obama-inspired narcosis, shirks its duty, refusing to publish or even explore any aspect of Obama's dark side. There is room for much optimism, however. If the ancient story of Narcissus and Echo plays itself out as Ovid recorded it, and Obama and the MSM are their contemporary counterparts, both will fade away in the not too distant future......

....What of Narcissus? Abandoned, without an Echo, he becomes distraught and pines away, utterly consumed by his passion for his image. Those who search for his body can find only his namesake Narcissus flower. Obama will also disappear from the scene, a pretender caught in a trap of his pride's own making. Those who search for his substance will not be able to find it. He will become the symbol and memory of a time when too many Americans lost their moral and spiritual bearings, abandoned foundational principles, and all-too-eagerly embraced 'a reflected form which has no substance of its own.' "

Let's hope Mr. Johnson is prescient.

#

As predicited, Sotomayor is Obama's SCOTUS choice

....to replace Souter, as discussed here.

More, from Kathryn Jean Lopez and Wendy Long, at Bench Memos.

Lopez:

"Sotomayor is a liberal woman, so the National Organization of Women is on board, announcing their 'Confirm Her' campaign.

That's the same same group, by the way, which produced a sign I have on my wall that warned 'STOP SOUTER OR WOMEN WILL DIE'

"Going through Sotomayor's credentials on MSNBC, Chuck Todd just went through empathy first. High on the evidence of empathy list? She struggled with childhood diabetes.

And this a Supreme Court justice makes. "

Lopez quotes Jeffrey Rosen:

"Over the past few weeks, I've been talking to a range of people who have worked with her, nearly all of them former law clerks for other judges on the Second Circuit or former federal prosecutors in New York. Most are Democrats and all of them want President Obama to appoint a judicial star of the highest intellectual caliber who has the potential to change the direction of the court.

Nearly all of them acknowledged that Sotomayor is a presumptive front-runner, but nearly none of them raved about her. They expressed questions about her temperament, her judicial craftsmanship, and most of all, her ability to provide an intellectual counterweight to the conservative justices, as well as a clear liberal alternative."

Long:

"Judge Sotomayor is a liberal judicial activist of the first order who thinks her own personal political agenda is more important that the law as written. She thinks that judges should dictate policy, and that one's sex, race, and ethnicity ought to affect the decisions one renders from the bench.

She reads racial preferences and quotas into the Constitution, even to the point of dishonoring those who preserve our public safety. On September 11, America saw firsthand the vital role of America's firefighters in protecting our citizens. They put their lives on the line for her and the other citizens of New York and the nation. But Judge Sotomayor would sacrifice their claims to fair treatment in employment promotions to racial preferences and quotas. The Supreme Court is now reviewing that decision.

She has an extremely high rate of her decisions being reversed, indicating that she is far more of a liberal activist than even the current liberal activist Supreme Court."

Rick Moran has the best summary so far:

"She's a woman, an Hispanic, and not as liberal as the left would like but too liberal for the rest of us."

All in all, it's just what we would expect from an Obamanation SCOTUS appointee: A Barack Obama clone when it comes to philosophy.

In other words, business as usual.

#

'So Lucky to be an American'

I am too.

The blessings have been abundant.

But not for much longer, if we don't change the "Change".

#

Perspective

Memorial Day

BLACKFIVE:

"Honor them by ensuring that our future was worth the sacrifice of their tomorrows."

And I add this:

"Do not dishonor them by marginalizing the mission for which they died."

We must never forget.

Everyday is Memorial Day.

#

Who exactly was involved in the authorship of 'Dreams From My Father'?

Author and "literary doctor" tells us about his research into the issue,and why it matters.

Noteworthy:

"For the literary left, the fact that Ayers helped Obama would be a less troubling revelation than that Obama needed help at all. They have built a foundational myth around his genius, a genius that can be located only in Dreams. The dark side of the Democrat genius mythology, of course, is the Republican dunce mythology of which Sarah Palin and George Bush are the most recent victims.

There is thus a logic to the left's willful blindness. Why the literary right has accepted this charade continues to baffle me."


And here we have the chief collaborator himself on video:


Let's here it for the academic and intellectual integrity of the Resident President of the Obamanation United States.

#

Obama admits the obvious

"We're out of money."

Rick Moran:

"This is a man who hasn't a clue. Yes, we are in a recession and a financial crisis. So your scare tactics that ratcheted up fear in order to get your stim bill, omnibus spending, and FY 2009 budget passed - a total of more than $5 trillion with interest added - are backfiring and you think you can work your way out of it by spending a trillion more on a health insurance boondoggle?

What planet is this guy from? "

Not Krypton, obviously.

And, of course, our current and pending economic disasters can be blamed on anyone or anything but him.

Noteworthy:

" 'Don't blame me,' Obama says. It's those 7 Straw Men who are responsible. "

Such is life under the Obamanation.

#

'The Gitmo Myth and the Torture Canard'

Arthur Herman has a detailed analysis of the outrageous inaccuracies, falsehoods, and outright politicization of these issues by the Obamanation and the Dem/Lefty/"Progressive"element.

It's a long read, but it shows how the above named cretins have managed the propaganda to their benefit, and have left our nation weaker as a result of their actions.

Noteworthy:

"Who, living in the weeks after 9/11 when the Center for Constitutional Rights began its campaign against Gitmo, could have predicted that in less than eight years, an American administration would be contemplating turning unrepentant terrorists loose on the street or contemplating putting those who incarcerated them on trial?

The final verdict on Gitmo rests on whether one believes the claims of the terrorists and their allies, or the evidence presented by the Pentagon and other official investigators. Where President Obama stands on this question is still unclear. At times, he has shown pragmatism in conducting “the war on terror” (although he has banished the term from the official lexicon). At other times, he has been willing to use anti-American sentiment to his own advantage. By feeding the media with selective leaks of interrogation memos and by publicly contemplating legal action against former Bush officials, he is able to devalue George Bush’s accomplishment in making us safe after 9/11. This helps burnish Obama’s own reputation—while implicitly paying obeisance to Ratner, Soros, and others who have distorted American public perception of why and how the Bush administration fought the war on terror in the way it did.

Meanwhile, Gitmo remains open, the unwanted orphan of the war on terror. Attacks on guards at Gitmo continue as before, sometimes as many as ten per week. However, human-rights groups and lawyers are just getting warmed up. They are now laying the ground for a similar legal assault on the American detention center at Bagram Air Force Base in Afghanistan, which they call Gitmo with a different zip code.

On April 15, detainee Muhammad al-Qahtani told al-Jazeera that he had been quietly sitting in his cell when soldiers burst into his room with a thick rubber or plastic baton. “They beat me with it. They emptied two canisters of tear gas on me,” he said, and claimed that after all this, they beat him again.

It is, of course, a lie. But it is of a piece with the entire Gitmo myth, which was constructed to ruin the Bush administration and blacken the reputation of the United States. The careful construction of this myth caused America to turn on itself in the midst of a still desperate struggle against Islamist terrorism. The consequences of this sea change in opinion may turn out to be measured not in political gains and losses by our major parties but in a revival of the fortunes of America’s foes."

#

The 'moral high ground' and the war on terror

Yes, it IS a war on terror, regardless of what the Obamanation and assorted other delusionaries want you to believe, and no, the "moral high ground", as defined by the babbling/ drooling brigade, is NOT something we're obligated to uphold in a conflict such as this.

David Bueche:

"Would you rather be 'morally pure' and have thousand die in the Library Tower Attack in Los Angeles sometime in 2002, or would you rather inflict a little pain on a hardened mass murderer and prevent this loss of innocent life? Those are the choices - and viewing it any other way is naïve at best, or more likely, cynical, short-sighted and extremely disingenuous......

...If we wake one warm September morning -- as we did just eight years ago -- to see a gaping hole where an American landmark once stood, to see the tortured decisions of people choosing between death by fire or falling, to see victory celebrations in Gaza, Iran and all the other places we've recently apologized or capitulated, this will be seen as an interesting interlude, a brief intermission in a much longer struggle, the shape of which is still just coming in to focus."

#

'Sound and fury signify nothing'

Victor Davis Hanson:

"..I think we now have come to the end to the five-year left-wing attack theme of Bush 'shredding the Constitution.'

Except for the introduction of euphemisms and a few new ballyhooed but largely meaningless protocols, there is no longer a Bush-did-it argument. The Patriot Act, wiretaps, e-mail intercepts, military tribunals, Predator drone attacks, Iraq, Afghanistan — and now Guantánamo — are officially no longer part of the demonic Bush/Cheney/Rumsfeld nexus, but apparently collective legitimate anti-terrorism measures designed to thwart killers, and by agreement, after years of observance, of great utility in keeping us safe the last eight years.

Add in the Holder statements about Guantánamo in the 2002 interview, the Pelosi/Rockefeller/et al. waterboarding briefings, the need to consider torture in past statements by senators such as Schumer, and I think historians will now look back at these 'dark years' as largely a collective, bipartisan effort.

All of which leaves us a final musing: If so, what was the hysteria of 2001-2008 about other than simple politics?

I doubt we get any more movies about ongoing renditions, redactions, any more Checkpoint-like novels, any more waterboarding skits and reenactments, any more late-night comedians doing their Bush tapped, intercepted, tortured, renditioned, tribunaled poor suspect X routines.

And I guess as well that the good old days of supposedly flushed Korans in Guantánamo and Omar the poor liberationist renditioned to Cairo are over. We are now in the age of a sober and judicious President Obama who circumspectly, if reluctantly and in anguish at the high cost, does what is necessary to keep us safe.

And we won't see a brave young liberal senator, Obama-like, barnstorming the Iowa precincts blasting a presidency for trampling our values with the shame of Guantánamo, wiretaps, intercepts, renditions, military tribunals, Predators, Iraq, etc. That motif just dissolved — or rather, it never really existed.

It short, all the fury, the vicious slander, the self-righteous outbursts, the impassioned speeches from the floor, the 'I accuse' op-eds by the usual moralistic pundits — all that turned out to be solely about politics, nothing more."

Via Dr. Sanity, who has more:

"This is precisely what hysteria , including political hysteria is all about--emotionalism designed to keep a hidden agenda from awareness. It is the politics of denial; and we have been drowning in the Democrats' denial for years. It will not stop now that Barack Obama has essentially adopted all of Bush's strategies in the war on terror overseas contingency operations.

Instead of investing the psychological energy necessary to effectively use those strategies, the energy will be investing in maintaining the denial by persecuting, prosecuting, denouncing and demonizing Bush, Cheney, and former officials. Recognition of Bush's accomplishments and acknowledgment that his strategies were carefully developed and actually worked cannot be made part of the national consciousness--it is far too threatening to the left. Hence, the tales told by the idiots of the left will continue unabated until disaster strikes.

Like Obama, they want to live in two completely separate realities and pretend these alternate universes are compatible.

But we all know what happens when matter and anti-matter come into contact with each other, don't we?"

We have heard the "progressive" Obamanation sycophants babble-on endlessly about what a great Constitutionalist Obama is, by virtue of policies like "closing Guantanamo" and "restoring rights" to the detainees.

Yet unremarked upon by this same group of agenda-driven toads is the Obamanation's constant and extensive Constitutional destruction via usurpation of power and assumption of powers never intended to be placed the office of the president. and it's all to implement the cherished agenda of an extremist worldview, and the result will be the end of American values that we've always valued as the nature of our nation and its people.

No, there's no political, social, and economic worldview at play among the Obamanation and those toady apologists, is there?

#

The Cap 'n Trade Bill: Waxman doesn't have a CLUE of what it contains

Yet he barfs up the nonsense about the "scientific consensus on anthropogenic global warming" without missing a hurl.



Is there NOTHING that will save us from the sheer lunacy and outright lies of the True Believers?

I guess that's just one more item we'll need to add to the list of things they expect us to "smile and grin at the changes all around....."

#

Shall we visit to remember, and to pay our respects?

The safeguard for politically induced suicide is supposed to be the Constitution. Unfortunately, that document is widely ignored by those in power who have a political, social, and economic agenda to forcibly install.

#

Dick Cheney, on the Obamanation nonsense about terror, terrorists, and interrogation methods

Excerpts:

"We did all of these things, and with bipartisan support put all these policies in place. It has resulted in serious blows against enemy operations ... the take-down of the A.Q. Khan network ... and the dismantling of Libya's nuclear program. It's required the commitment of many thousands of troops in two theaters of war, with high points and some low points in both Iraq and Afghanistan - and at every turn, the people of our military carried the heaviest burden. Well over seven years into the effort, one thing we know is that the enemy has spent most of this time on the defensive - and every attempt to strike inside the United States has failed.

So we're left to draw one of two conclusions - and here is the great dividing line in our current debate over national security. You can look at the facts and conclude that the comprehensive strategy has worked, and therefore needs to be continued as vigilantly as ever. Or you can look at the same set of facts and conclude that 9/11 was a one-off event - coordinated, devastating, but also unique and not sufficient to justify a sustained wartime effort. Whichever conclusion you arrive at, it will shape your entire view of the last seven years, and of the policies necessary to protect America for years to come."

"Even before the interrogation program began, and throughout its operation, it was closely reviewed to ensure that every method used was in full compliance with the Constitution, statutes, and treaty obligations. On numerous occasions, leading members of Congress, including the current speaker of the House, were briefed on the program and on the methods.

Yet for all these exacting efforts to do a hard and necessary job and to do it right, we hear from some quarters nothing but feigned outrage based on a false narrative. In my long experience in Washington, few matters have inspired so much contrived indignation and phony moralizing as the interrogation methods applied to a few captured terrorists.

I might add that people who consistently distort the truth in this way are in no position to lecture anyone about 'values.' Intelligence officers of the United States were not trying to rough up some terrorists simply to avenge the dead of 9/11. We know the difference in this country between justice and vengeance. Intelligence officers were not trying to get terrorists to confess to past killings; they were trying to prevent future killings. From the beginning of the program, there was only one focused and all-important purpose. We sought, and we in fact obtained, specific information on terrorist plans.

Those are the basic facts on enhanced interrogations. And to call this a program of torture is to libel the dedicated professionals who have saved American lives, and to cast terrorists and murderers as innocent victims. What's more, to completely rule out enhanced interrogation methods in the future is unwise in the extreme. It is recklessness cloaked in righteousness, and would make the American people less safe."

"Releasing the interrogation memos was flatly contrary to the national security interest of the United States. The harm done only begins with top secret information now in the hands of the terrorists, who have just received a lengthy insert for their training manual. Across the world, governments that have helped us capture terrorists will fear that sensitive joint operations will be compromised. And at the CIA, operatives are left to wonder if they can depend on the White House or Congress to back them up when the going gets tough. Why should any agency employee take on a difficult assignment when, even though they act lawfully and in good faith, years down the road the press and Congress will treat everything they do with suspicion, outright hostility, and second-guessing? Some members of Congress are notorious for demanding they be briefed into the most sensitive intelligence programs. They support them in private, and then head for the hills at the first sign of controversy.

As far as the interrogations are concerned, all that remains an official secret is the information we gained as a result. Some of his defenders say the unseen memos are inconclusive, which only raises the question why they won't let the American people decide that for themselves. I saw that information as vice president, and I reviewed some of it again at the National Archives last month. I've formally asked that it be declassified so the American people can see the intelligence we obtained, the things we learned, and the consequences for national security. And as you may have heard, last week that request was formally rejected. It's worth recalling that ultimate power of declassification belongs to the President himself. President Obama has used his declassification power to reveal what happened in the interrogation of terrorists. Now let him use that same power to show Americans what did not happen, thanks to the good work of our intelligence officials.

I believe this information will confirm the value of interrogations - and I am not alone. President Obama's own Director of National Intelligence, Admiral Blair, has put it this way: "High value information came from interrogations in which those methods were used and provided a deeper understanding of the al-Qaeda organization that was attacking this country." End quote. Admiral Blair put that conclusion in writing, only to see it mysteriously deleted in a later version released by the administration - the missing 26 words that tell an inconvenient truth. But they couldn't change the words of George Tenet, the CIA Director under Presidents Clinton and Bush, who bluntly said: 'I know that this program has saved lives. I know we've disrupted plots. I know this program alone is worth more than the FBI, the Central Intelligence Agency, and the National Security Agency put together have been able to tell us.' End of quote.

If Americans do get the chance to learn what our country was spared, it'll do more than clarify the urgency and the rightness of enhanced interrogations in the years after 9/11. It may help us to stay focused on dangers that have not gone away. Instead of idly debating which political opponents to prosecute and punish, our attention will return to where it belongs - on the continuing threat of terrorist violence, and on stopping the men who are planning it.

For all the partisan anger that still lingers, our administration will stand up well in history - not despite our actions after 9/11, but because of them. And when I think about all that was to come during our administration and afterward - the recriminations, the second-guessing, the charges of 'hubris' - my mind always goes back to that moment."

Unfortunately, those words will not affect those who willfully do not hear or understand the truth contained in them.

#

Obama's Government Motors: 'All Cost, No Benefit'

Let's see:

1. Higher costs.....more like $6000 per car (unsubsidized), not $600.

2. Lower profit for auto companies. No Big Deal for subsidized Government Motors (GM), UAW Benefit Manufacturing (Chrysler), but bad news for Little Orphan Motors (Ford).

3. No reduction of foreign oil.

4. Consumers not better off financially.

5. Reduction of real world safety on the roads.

6. And last, no reduction in "greenhouse gas", to solve the non-existent climate crisis the True Believers think we're headed for.

So where's the benefit?

#

Obama is NEVER wrong, right?

Especially when it comes to terrorism, nations that enable terror, so-called "torture", Guantanamo, and those paragons of Allah's wisdom who are detained there.

Key point:

"The president insisted in his speech that the Guantanamo Bay detention camp and enhanced interrogation techniques (which he characteristically referred to as 'torture,' a term both legally inaccurate and morally obtuse) increased terrorist recruitment. In fact the leading driver of terrorist recruitment is successful terrorist attacks. That is what convinces the fence-sitters that radical Islam can win, and that Osama bin Laden is correct when he argues that the United States is a weak horse that will retreat when things get tough enough.

The counterterrorism policies of the Bush administration prevented new terrorist attacks and assured the world’s bin Ladens that the United States was committed to their defeat. We hope that assurance still holds; if it does, it is only because President Obama, for all his unseemly disparagement of his predecessor, has picked up the tools George W. Bush left him and made them his own."

Why is it that EVERYTHING Obama has done since January 20 is not only WRONG (or a screwed-up modification of something that was right), but has DIRE NEGATIVE CONSEQUENCES for our nation and our people?

Is he causing all this damage on purpose?

#

NASA's focus in the world of 'Hope 'n Change'

You get three guesses as to which of those options is applicable under the Obamanation, and the first two guesses don't count.

#

Did this song get sung (or will it get sung) at a GCS 5th Grade graduation?

I received some information that the following song was performed, or will be performed, at the Jamestown Elementary 5th Grade graduation ceremony.

Dear Obama

(Solo – spoken)

This is a letter to Barack Obama…it’s our way of saying thank you.

(Solo – spoken)

Thank you for showing me that no doors are closed.

I have the power to control my own future.

(Solo – spoken)

Thank you for showing me that I can stand tall and be proud of who I am.

(Solo – spoken)

You have given us strength, courage and hope.

And for that we all say Thank You!

(Verse 1)

Dear Obama, Hear us sing

We’re ready for the change that you will bring.

Going to shine the light for the world to see, to spread peace hope and democracy.

The time is now bring our troops home. Iraq can stand strong on its own.

And fight for healthcare for the young so that coverage is available for everyone.

And it’s time to find renewable ways to fuel our needs, so we don’t depend on Chavez and the Middle East.

We’ve got to stand up tall for the middle class and regulate the businesses that in the past got away with no oversight.

Doing things that we’re not right.

Giving loans and bad advice, expecting us to pay the price.

The change we need should begin today and Barack we stand behind you as you lead the way.

(Chorus)

Dear Obama – ba, ba, ba – Obama.

Dear Obama – ba, ba, ba – Obama.

You’ve broken down doors

No limits anymore

We all agree that Yes We Can

Dear Obama we must unite and pull together members of the left and the right

With terror threats bringing fear we hope our world you will soon hear

Diplomacy in Islaamabaad and please control Ahmidinejad.

With Hillary Clinton as your Secretary of State, your team has the opportunity to make.

The world will see us with adoring eyes.

And our popularity will rise.

Please pay off all our debts to China, and strengthen our forces against Al-qaeda.

You have the power to change education, giving our public schools some dedication.

Raising up teacher pay

Improving Schools in every state.

So every child can truly make it, in the steps that you have created.

(Chorus)

Dear Obama – ba, ba, ba – Obama.

Dear Obama – ba, ba, ba – Obama.

You’ve broken down doors

No limits anymore

We all agree that Yes We Can

(Solo – spoken)

And today is a new day where we can all see a new hope for our country.

And we know that all along your journey, people say mean things to you and about you.

But you never gave up and that gives us strength to never give up.

You are more than a President.

You are a role model, a father figure, and a man we can all look up to, and for that we say Thank You.

(Chorus)

Dear Obama – ba, ba, ba – Obama.

Dear Obama – ba, ba, ba – Obama.

You’ve broken down doors

No limits anymore

We all agree that Yes We Can

(Solo – spoken)

Sincerely, every child, every family, everyone…

Barack Obama – We Thank You!

"The time is now bring our troops home. Iraq can stand strong on its own.
And fight for healthcare for the young so that coverage is available for everyone"?

"We’ve got to stand up tall for the middle class and regulate the businesses that in the past got away with no oversight.
Doing things that we’re not right.
Giving loans and bad advice, expecting us to pay the price."?

"With terror threats bringing fear we hope our world you will soon hear
Diplomacy in Islaamabaad ...."?

"You have the power to change education, giving our public schools some dedication.
Raising up teacher pay."?

Can anyone verify that this did, or will,take place?

If so, who are the teachers and administrators responsible for this outrageous brainwashing?

Those who perpetrated this need to be gone from our school system.

NOW.

They have no business being in any position of authority over 11 and 12 year old kids.

#

The coming discontent of the voting and motoring public about vehicles and driving under the Obamanation

"Car Crazy" describes the coming disaster completely.

Let's sum up what is now readily apparent about this situation:

1.Obama and his cronies are running two American car companies now.

2. By default, he's proposed draconian design parameters with his "pick a number out of the air" fuel mileage mandate.

3. His energy and tax policies are going to raise the cost of transportation by an unbearable amount while NOT solving any "( non-existent) climate change" or "energy shortage" problem.

4. There is every likelihood that, given his proclivity for thugishness and strong-armed tactics, he will force you out of your older, non-Obama conforming vehicle, and.....

5. His economic "stimulus" plan isn't, and in fact will extend and probably deepen the economic distress in more ways than meets the eye, one of which is the eventual complete failure of GM and Chrysler.

And those are just the cluster f**ks I anticipate off the top of my head.

Excerpts from the WSJ article:

"Mr. Obama's fleet-mileage partners yesterday included the two auto companies that have fallen into his arms, Chrysler and GM, still-independent Ford, the major foreign manufacturers, United Auto Workers chief Ron Gettelfinger, and beaming representatives from the Sierra Club, Environmental Defense Fund and the Union of Concerned Scientists.

All that's left to arrive at the President's new destination for the American way of driving are huge, unanswered questions about technology, financing and the marketability of cars that will be small and expensive."

....and:

"These public goals notwithstanding, it still looks as if Ford, Chrysler and GM will be making cars they can't sell, or can't sell profitably. That might not be a problem if you're now Gettelfinger Motors. But still-independent Ford has private shareholders and creditors to answer. While GM and Chrysler attempt to meet the new standards with taxpayer money, Ford will have to do so on its own........One thing seems certain by 2016: Taxpayers will be paying Detroit to make the cars Americans don't want, and then they will pay again either through (trust us) a gas tax or with a purchase subsidy. Even the French must think we're nuts."

Indeed.

#

Restoring America: 'The Example of Ezra'

Regarding those alternate realities that those of a certain worldview cherish

It's just a matter of the rest of us understanding the parallel universe that Dems/Lefties/"Progressives" inhabit.

Noteworthy:

"The laws of my perceptual universe are, to me, as obvious and irrepressible as the laws of physics. I have come to embrace them and in so doing have enjoyed some modicum of personal success. The laws of the liberal universe are no doubt as obvious to liberals, but I would argue that they are not irrepressible because they have failed every time in history that they have been applied. But then, perhaps I am biased."

...and:

"For those of us who exist in my universe (which I consider the "true" universe) this is a disconcerting truth. The question is: what to do? For me, I will continue to invest in the laws of my universe. I will act in my self-interest and I will use the persuasive talents God has given me to convince the collective of the errors of its ways. I will try to preserve the wealth I have spent a lifetime to acquire, and I intend to defend myself and my family from all who would seek to take it from me.

But at some point I fear I will be a man without a country, living in a parallel universe, and no Scotty to beam me up."

At that point, the only beams will be the radiated glow from the legions of Moonbats.

#

Common sense prevails in the Senate on GTMO

They're NOT going to let Obama move GTMO detainees stateside.

Key point:

"Senate Democrats sought last week to include an initial $50 million in funding for Guantanamo's closure, but they quickly retreated in the face of the Republican outcry.

With few alternatives, some are even echoing the GOP assertion that the state-of-the-art facility should remain open. 'We spent hundreds of millions of dollars building an appropriate facility with all security precautions on Guantanamo to try these cases,' Sen. James Webb (D-Va.) said Sunday on ABC News's 'This Week." Webb added, 'I do not believe they should be tried in the United States.'

McConnell taunted Democrats yesterday for their rapid capitulation on Guantanamo. 'I understand our friends on the other side of the aisle are -- shall I say? -- moving in our direction rapidly.' "

Imagine that!

Camp X Ray will remain OPEN, as well it should be.

The Obamanation's GTMO nonsense is OVER.

#

Obama wants a "Two State" solution in the Middle East?

It's not going to happen, regardless of what the Anti Israeli/Pro Palestinian enablers on the Dem/Lefty/"Progressive" side would wish to happen.

Stratfor's George Friedman:

"....That Israel has a new prime minister and the United States a new president might appear to make this meeting significant. But this is Netanyahu’s second time as prime minister, and his government is as diverse and fractious as most recent Israeli governments. Israeli politics are in gridlock, with deep divisions along multiple fault lines and an electoral system designed to magnify disagreements.

Obama is much stronger politically, but he has consistently acted with caution, particularly in the foreign policy arena. Much of his foreign policy follows from the Bush administration. He has made no major breaks in foreign policy beyond rhetoric; his policies on Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Russia and Europe are essentially extensions of pre-existing policy. Obama faces major economic problems in the United States and clearly is not looking for major changes in foreign policy. He understands how quickly public sentiment can change, and he does not plan to take risks he does not have to take right now.

This, then, is the problem: Netanyahu is coming to Washington hoping to get Obama to agree to fundamental redefinitions of the regional dynamic. For example, he wants Obama to re-examine the commitment to a two-state solution in the Israeli-Palestinian dispute. (Netanyahu’s foreign minister, Avigdor Lieberman, has said Israel is no longer bound by prior commitments to that concept.) Netanyahu also wants the United States to commit itself to a finite time frame for talks with Iran, after which unspecified but ominous-sounding actions are to be taken.

Facing a major test in Afghanistan and Pakistan, Obama has more than enough to deal with at the moment. Moreover, U.S. presidents who get involved in Israeli-Palestinian negotiations frequently get sucked into a morass from which they do not return. For Netanyahu to even request that the White House devote attention to the Israeli-Palestinian problem at present is asking a lot. Asking for a complete review of the peace process is even less realistic.

The foundation of the Israeli-Palestinian peace process for years has been the assumption that there would be a two-state solution. Such a solution has not materialized for a host of reasons. First, at present there are two Palestinian entities, Gaza and the West Bank, which are hostile to each other. Second, the geography and economy of any Palestinian state would be so reliant on Israel that independence would be meaningless; geography simply makes the two-state proposal almost impossible to implement. Third, no Palestinian government would have the power to guarantee that rogue elements would not launch rockets at Israel, potentially striking at the Tel Aviv-Jerusalem corridor, Israel’s heartland. And fourth, neither the Palestinians nor the Israelis have the domestic political coherence to allow any negotiator to operate from a position of confidence. Whatever the two sides negotiated would be revised and destroyed by their political opponents, and even their friends.

For this reason, the entire peace process — including the two-state solution — is a chimera. Neither side can live with what the other can offer. But if it is a fiction, it is a fiction that serves U.S. purposes. The United States has interests that go well beyond Israeli interests and sometimes go in a different direction altogether. Like Israel, the United States understands that one of the major obstacles to any serious evolution toward a two-state solution is Arab hostility to such an outcome.

The Jordanians have feared and loathed Fatah in the West Bank ever since the Black September uprisings of 1970. The ruling Hashemites are ethnically different from the Palestinians (who constitute an overwhelming majority of the Jordanian population), and they fear that a Palestinian state under Fatah would threaten the Jordanian monarchy.

For their part, the Egyptians see Hamas as a descendent of the Muslim Brotherhood, which seeks the Mubarak government’s ouster — meaning Cairo would hate to see a Hamas-led state.

Meanwhile, the Saudis and the other Arab states do not wish to see a radical altering of the status quo, which would likely come about with the rise of a Palestinian polity.

At the same time, whatever the basic strategic interests of the Arab regimes, all pay lip service to the principle of Palestinian statehood. This is hardly a unique situation. States frequently claim to favor various things they actually are either indifferent to or have no intention of doing anything about.

Complicating matters for the Arab states is the fact that they have substantial populations that do care about the fate of the Palestinians. These states thus are caught between public passion on behalf of Palestinians and the regimes’ interests that are threatened by the Palestinian cause. The states’ challenge, accordingly, is to appear to be doing something on behalf of the Palestinians while in fact doing nothing.

The United States has a vested interest in the preservation of these states. The futures of Egypt, Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states are of vital importance to Washington. The United States must therefore simultaneously publicly demonstrate its sensitivity to pressures from these nations over the Palestinian question while being careful to achieve nothing — an easy enough goal to achieve.

The various Israeli-Palestinian peace processes have thus served U.S. and Arab interests quite well. They provide the illusion of activity, with high-level visits breathlessly reported in the media, succeeded by talks and concessions — all followed by stalemate and new rounds of violence, thus beginning the cycle all over again."

#

Pelosi's inexcusable lies

....and the Democrats continuous enablement of her shameful behavior.

Noteworthy:

"As Joe Scarborough clearly understands, it simply reminds people of some of the worst traits of today’s Left — from its almost reflexive disdain for the CIA to its angry and bitter tone. It doesn’t help Shrum’s case that the current CIA director, Leon Panetta — formerly a Democratic Member of the House from California’s delegation, as well as Bill Clinton’s chief of staff — wrote a memo not only directly contradicting what Shrum says, but also — by the force and logic of Panetta argument — accusing Speaker Pelosi of herself lying."

Her's her bizarre press conference:



She needs to go.......NOW!

#

Two unvarnished truths about the Obama 'Stimulus'

From the Washington Examiner:

Tyler Cowen:

“it is very hard to find [historical] examples of successful fiscal stimulus driving an economic recovery. Ever."

Greg Mankiw:

It is becoming increasingly clear that the long-term fiscal strategy of the White House is based on large doses of wishful thinking.”

#

'I wish I were a liberal'

Sometimes, in the deepest, darkest dispare, when all seems lost, some people actually think this way.

Others make fun of the sentiment expressed in the post's headline.

In case you're brand new to this blog, I belong to the second group.

Noteworthy:

"In return, I'll be accepted, popular, and invited to the best parties. I'll be eligible for the right to housing, health care, a living wage (even if I don't work) and happiness. And as long as I remain a liberal, no-one is allowed to insult me. How cool is that?'

For those who belong to the first group I mentioned above, if you were a libthinker, you won't have to "work on putting gas in your car, or paying your mortgage, either.

Your now-enthroned President promised you so in the last campaign, didn't he?

#

Paying for ObamaCare

Here's a look at who and what is going to be taxed to pay for ObamaCare.

Noteworthy:

"The soda pop tax would apply to drinks sweetened with sugar, high-fructose corn syrup or other high-calorie sweeteners. That includes iced tea and noncarbonated drinks like punch. But diet drinks would escape the tax man.

The tax increase on alcoholic drinks would hit beer and wine hardest. Per ounce of alcohol, hard liquor now faces the highest federal tax rate. The Senate option would raise the current tax rate, and then apply the same rate to all types of alcoholic drinks. Small wineries and breweries would get some consideration.

Health insurance provided by employers isn't taxable now, even though it's considered part of overall compensation. Senators are considering several options, including taxing health insurance benefits for individuals making more than $200,000 a year, or $400,000 for a couple. Another would limit the tax-free status of health insurance to the value of the standard plan available to federal employees.

Potential revenue raisers also include doing away with flexible spending accounts, limiting the income tax deduction for out-of-pocket medical costs, and charging upper income seniors more for their Medicare drug plans.

Congress is forging ahead on health care, with no consensus in sight on how to pay."

Oh, come on!

You REALLY didn't expect it to actually be "free", did you?

Notice how, in their infinite wisdom, the Obamanation is considering taxing a dis-incentive against ObamaCare (taking away tax deductions for market-based private sector health insurance)?

Other than that, I could almost support the rest of these funding proposals for selfish reasons.

In recent decades, I have imbibed almost nothing of the beverages mentioned as ObamaCare revenue sources.

#

Obama's got a plan for your future wheels...

......and you will LIKE it, whether you like it or not!

"You WILL drive the functional equivalents of four wheel enclosed Vespas, because I SAY so! Automotive safety and comfort forthwith will have no function (except for the privileged Elite, like Al Gore and myself)."

Noteworthy:

"In secret conversations, the Obama administration has lined up support from many state governments and a huge array of domestic and foreign automakers, including GM, Ford, Chrysler, BMW and many more."

.....no doubt using the same scorched earth policy his thugs used on the Chrysler bondholders to force them to give up their bond agreements, while protecting the UAW's vested interests.

We're well aware how things like that work in the Obamanation.

#

Who's the bigger bozo? Barry O, or Pelosi?

Barry O, for releasing the interrogation tapes in response to Dick Cheney's accurate criticism of the Obamanation's foreign policy disasters?

Or La Pelosi, for her dumb and dumber routine lies about what she knew and when she knew it regarding "enhanced interrogation" techniques?

I'll go with Pelosi, who obviously can't even separate fact from fiction, and probably reallybelieves her lies are not lies, despite the evidence that convicts her.

More:



More details:

"House Minority Leader John Boehner told FOX News on Monday that 'the ball is in the speaker's court.' If she is accusing the CIA of lying, she 'needs to come forward, either present evidence or do an apology, and let's get this behind us.'

'Lying to Congress is a crime. Purposely misleading Congress is a crime. And if the speaker is accusing the intelligence community of lying to her or purposefully misleading her, then she ought to present that evidence, turn it over to the Justice Department, have them prosecute it,' Boehner said.

But Boehner did not call for Pelosi's ouster."

But plenty of others have.

That call should be heeded.

Don't hold your breath.

#

Witch would YOU chose?

Wise decisions really DO pay off!

KING ARTHUR AND THE WITCH

Young King Arthur was ambushed and imprisoned by the monarch of a neighboring kingdom. The monarch could have killed him but was moved by Arthur's youth and ideals. So, the monarch offered him his freedom, as long as he could answer a very difficult question. Arthur would have a year to figure out the answer and, if after a year, he still had no answer, he would be put to death.

The question? What do women really want? Such a question would perplex even the most knowledgeable man, and to young Arthur, it seemed an impossible query. But, since it was better than death, he accepted the monarch's proposition to have an answer by year's end.

He returned to his kingdom and began to poll everyone: the princess, the priests, the wise men and even the court jester. He spoke with everyone, but no one could give him a satisfactory answer.

Many people advised him to consult the old witch, for only she would have the answer.

But the price would be high; as the witch was famous throughout the kingdom for the exorbitant prices she charged.

The last day of the year arrived and Arthur had no choice but to talk to the witch She agreed to answer the question, but he would have to agree to her price first.

The old witch wanted to marry Sir Lancelot, the most noble of the Knights of the Round Table and Arthur's closest friend!

Young Arthur was horrified. She was hunchbacked and hideous, had only one tooth, smelled like sewage, made obscene noises, etc He had never encountered such a repugnant creature in all his life.

He refused to force his friend to marry her and endure such a terrible burden; but Lancelot, learning of the proposal, spoke with Arthur.

He said nothing was too big of a sacrifice compared to Arthur's life and the preservation of the Round Table.

Hence, a wedding was proclaimed and the witch answered Arthur's question thus:

What a woman really wants, she answered.... is to be in charge of her own life.

Everyone in the kingdom instantly knew that the witch had uttered a great truth and that Arthur's life would be spared.

And so it was, the neighboring monarch granted Arthur his freedom and Lancelot and the witch had a wonderful wedding.

The honeymoon hour approached and Lancelot, steeling himself for a horrific experience, entered the bedroom. But, what a sight awaited him. The most beautiful woman he had ever seen lay before him on the bed. The astounded Lancelot asked what had happened

The beauty replied that since he had been so kind to her when she appeared as a witch, she would henceforth, be her horrible deformed self only half the time and the beautiful maiden the other half.

Which would he prefer? Beautiful during the day....or night?

Lancelot pondered the predicament. During the day, a beautiful woman to show off to his friends, but at night, in the privacy of his castle, an old witch? Or, would he prefer having a hideous witch during the day, but by night, a beautiful woman for him to enjoy wondrous intimate moments?

What would YOU do?

Noble Lancelot said that he would allow HER to make the choice herself.

Upon hearing this, she announced that she would be beautiful all the time because he had respected her enough to let her be in charge of her own life.

Now....what is the moral to this story?

The moral is....

If you don't let a woman have her own way...
Things are going to get ugly

#