Group Hug!

I can’t recall a White House in my lifetime that’s actually been friendly. As a teenager, I remember the nasty rumors coming out about the Clinton years. And thus far, there’s never been any real evidence to the contrary – Bill and Hillary were Mr. and Mrs. Bitchy. But at least Bill had the good sense (to listen to Dick Morris) to never attack…

The Bush years were all-too secretive. Not that I want nor certainly need to know what’s going on behind closed doors to keep Americans safe from terrorists, but the combination of Bush/Cheney just didn’t seem very trusting. There was no transparency on a lot of issues.

The Obama White House is shaping up to be a combination of the two to the tenth power. Mr. Whiny Pants and his minions are tossing fits over opposition and, at the same time, going back on that gargantuan promise of transparency – one of many promises shattered already).

The war on Fox News, though liberals and other Obama-loving types salivate over it, is honestly, no matter how you spin it, a war on free speech.

Until recently, they could have claimed that it wasn’t. They decided to approach it by using smears. “Fox isn’t ‘real’ news,” “(ABC) shouldn’t treat them as such,” “They have a ‘point of view,” “We’ll take media as it comes.”

Turns out they won’t take media as it comes; at least, not unless other reporters from WH-favored networks speak in Fox’s defense.

After stating that they wouldn’t exclude Fox, the White House attempted to do just that – exclude Major Garrett from Fox News from participating in the round-robin interview process.



How fuckin’ cruddy!

How DARE Fox use actual audio, video and literature from the people they run news on! How DARE Fox report news that some may take as anti-administration (Note: questioning the administration is anti-administration). How DARE Fox not let Team Obama control what they put out!

Shit, I would be mad too. But to me, this would be a signal to wise up and not surround myself with people who turn to Mao in times of need. Or people who support cop killers or child sodomy or eugenics or state-controlled media or control over the Internet or the life of a minnow over actual citizens or a .002 drop in carbon emissions over citizens’ tax dollars. It wouldn’t be my cue to prove Fox right about my being a radical loon by actually attempting to throw them out and silence their free speech! But that’s just me.

NBC took Obama to task first over this shunning of Fox News. And to that I say IT’S ABOUT FUCKING TIME, NBC!! Obama responded that Americans aren’t really concerned about that. Instead, they’re concerned over what’s being done to create jobs (nothing), and what’s being done in Afghanistan (nothing). Then he attempts to change what his advisors “meant” when slamming Fox News.

The media really pulled together when Fox was thrown from the pool. Before interviewing the new pay czar, Fox was tossed aside, and lo and behold, in a miraculous display of freedom-loving patriotism, anchors from CNN, CBS, ABC and NBC all conferred and decided that, if Fox wasn’t allowed in, they wouldn’t go either.

Like most liberals do, the White House backed down quickly once “their” media didn’t agree with the shunning. But what’s the lesson in this?

If you don’t agree and show uber-favorable coverage to this sitting President, you will be ousted from the group; your voice will not be welcomed if your voice doesn’t sound like all the others.

What in the hell is wrong with these people!? They can’t fix shit! They waffle on war decisions. They’re more concerned about regulating the pay of corporations they now effectively own instead of creating new jobs. They demonize private insurance and offer no real alternative that wouldn’t be Medicare-like corruption X a thousand. And with all these problems, they devote their time to smearing and shunning a news organization that they can’t control.

If it’s not blatantly apparent to anyone that these schmucks are seriously attempting to separate the country, then you haven’t been paying attention – either that or watching Bill Maher and Keith Olbermann.

The favorite excuse of Obama supporters for his inaction and ineffectiveness, “give him time,” has now run its course. When they choose to spend time fighting Fox instead of fighting to win a war or fighting to create jobs, they’ve floundered unequivocally.

MoveOn, HuffPo, MediaMatters, MSNBC, the New York Times, and a few other outlets have all the Fox-bashing radicals that a country could ever want. The White House doesn’t need to be in on the fight. I’m proud that a few in the media actually came together and refused to participate if Fox was going to be booted. There’s still some hope here.

After all, if they can toss Fox—the nation’s number-one news network—aside for daring to criticize His Highness, then who CAN’T be thrown under the bus next? You’re either a good sheep or you’re chopped up and put in curry. Those are the options this administration is giving.

Hopefully, more will opt for the curry in coming weeks. You might not get to baaaaaaaa beside Barack, but curry is a mighty tasty way to go out.

The Energizer Dummy

With the thick and brutal political climate in today’s America, it sometimes becomes too much to bear for an otherwise Al Bundy-esque individual like myself. After deciding to boycott news completely over the weekend, I reintroduced the toxic mess that is cable news back into my bloodstream this morning and, to my surprise, nothing has changed.

Not that I expected it to, but I can remember the previous eight years – when the only time you heard from Bush on a daily basis was through a Frank Caliendo or Will Ferrell impression. With President Obama, the guy is constantly up in your face. Still with the healthcare reform-slash-overhaul! Still!

Love the idea or could do without it, even the big-mouthed supporters—literally big-mouthed; trying to fit the entire sack in their oral cavity—can admit that the “urgency” is mighty false, considering most plans labeled immediate won’t be going into effect for years. But that still hasn’t stopped Obama from going on a reform tour.

Yeah, we’ve all seen it already. It’s like me trying to have sex with a girl I used to date. She said the relationship was fine and she wanted to wait. Okay, but can we have sex now? “No, I’d rather wait.” Sure, whatever you say, but how about now? She didn’t want it; she was clear on it. But I wanted it, and I kept on and on and on trying to convince her that she really wanted it too.

But I never attempted to pay her for it!

As if going on every non-Fox cable channel, making primetime speeches, appearing in magazines, and even having the Hollywood elite and art community trying to sell his “vision” isn’t enough, now there’s a cool $250 in it for seniors!

Obama loves you, this you know. For your handout tells you so!

Effective in his Presidency or not, it’s really too early to call the entire term a sham. But to this point, it’s pretty clear that Obama plans on campaigning to keep support. On one hand, why wouldn’t he? I mean, Bush was mums when under attack, and his approval rating went in the crapper quick, fast in a hurry. Well, that and the fact that a lot of Bush-bashers couldn’t tell him apart from his impersonators’ ramblings. We seen it with Fey/Palin, but I digress…

Most Americans over 65 are on Medicare, and with Obama “vision” and the liberal hacks bill (any of which they finally put forward), there is a legitimate danger of their care suffering. It’s not a right-wing talking point; it’s basic common sense if you spit the nuts out for a second and think on it.

Seniors—these Astroturf; these puppets of insurance companies—are the ones speaking out against an overhaul—not REFORM—the most. So to get their support, which keeps his houses blue and his reelection hopes alive, he’s going to do things the Chicago way? Is this what I’m hearing? For the first time in over 30 years seniors may not get a cost of living increase. Enter the bad guy: government.

But wait! Up in the sky, look – it’s a bird; it’s a plane. No, it’s SuperBama and his $250 “love me now?” check!

I hate to be this cynical of anyone, but for a guy so vain and so incredibly shameless when it comes to self promotion, it’s hard to view this as anything but a backhanded way to gain support. I mean, if it was really about the seniors and their living expenses, wouldn’t the logical thing to do be to give them an increase? This looks like nothing more than good cop, bad cop on steroids, with Obama playing the role of Bruce Willis and saving the day.

Yes! We love you now, Obama. Thank you for our money. Give us things and we will vote or support whatever you say. Now that’s politics at its finest! Just like the rumor in Detroit about the “free money” that led 15,000 to push and shove their way through a regular Wednesday afternoon. Wonder who they voted for?

(Note: I woulda said Samuel L. Jackson, but comparing black people to black people is apparently racism. But Obama’s half white and Bruce’s balls were owned by a liberal loon for decades, so it all evens out.)

Quick Question

This'll be quick. I'm just curious at half past midnight.

Why do far-left zealots push to punish police?

Sure, many law enforcement agencies have their corrupt employees, although not nearly on the scale of ACORN -- more on that in a minute. But for every crooked cop/reporter/soldier/security guard/etc, the other 99.9% step up and do the job right! So why go after the process?

Men and women tasked with capturing and interrogating terrorists--policing them!--are torn to shreds with rhetoric harmful to their job, investigations, smear campaigns, and even out-and-out traitorous acts, like showing CIA photos to TERRORISTS in order to ask them, "Is this the mean guy that called you names and blew smoke in your face?"

Cops in California have been no prize, that's for sure. But an overwhelming percentage of police officers do their civic duty correctly, justly and without incident. But when some maniac kills cops (has happened more than once), people stand up for the cop killers and decry policing as a whole. Yeah, anarchy would really go over well in Oakland. Population FUBAR.

Reporters used to be celebrated, but after Hannah Giles reported on ACORN, she's now being sued for $5 million and Baltimore is still deciding whether or not to file criminal charges against her and her partner in the videos. There are still more tapes to be released displaying possible criminal activity, halted now by the news, and what should be the biggest story of possible nationwide corruption in a century is now a right-vs.-left boxing match.

It all seems ironic. An extremely large portion of progressive liberals actually want a large government to take care of the population. Yet today's far-left loon seems to contradict that stance time and again.

It leaves you with one conclusion: it's just politics.

But fuck that. That's okay to say when Obama preemptively plays the race card against McCain, or when Palin claims Obama is "Pallin' around with terrorists." That's what these morons do. They’re all asshat hacks on one or more levels, working for a political future by any means necessary.

We're talking about something larger, though, when it comes to police and watchdogs and soldiers being treated as criminals just because they nab a bad guy you like! Or worse: a bad guy you’re TOLD to like!

If America should ever come together for anything, it should be to keep us ALL safe. Hey, here’s a news flash: Terrorists want to KILL US ALL. ACORN was helping the sporadic poor person achieve while habitually milking the system and stealing OUR tax dollars! Cop killers are not heroes!

For fuck’s sake! If we can’t unite over these three causes, then we never will under any circumstance.

Another Long Rant.... Who are the REAL Racists!?

The only time I bother writing a post is usually when a liberal on TV pisses me off by stating outright lies about anyone not subscribing to progressive ideology, and painting them a conservative hatemonger by default. It’s really enough to make your blood boil coming form anyone, but coming from the self-proclaimed righteous light of a long-dim America that is—supposedly—liberalism, my veins are steam-cleaned and bone dry.

Incensed only barely begins to cover how I feel when a progressive nut-job presents their misrepresented case like pertinent fact. I can understand out-of-context sound bites and clips. Everyone does that. I can even understand stretching the truth or grasping at straws to prove a point. That definitely happens on both sides. But only liberals use racism to prove racism and, to me, even though I’m part of the Caucasian majority, that’s sickening.

As Bill Maher worked so desperately to get a reaction from his ironically reactionary audience, he labeled the entire opposition to Obama as racist and “right-wing.” He went on to offer his “proof” by stating, sarcastically, that, “No, Republicans aren’t racist. They only go after…” and he then showed pictures of Barack and Michelle Obama, Van Jones, Rev. Wright, African-American ACORN employees, and Al Sharpton.

I understand that Maher is a comedian. So in a way, I forgive that. But he’s also pulled what I now call the Garofalo, in that he’s stepped beyond what he does for a living and into the political arena under the banner of solemn authority. He stopped being a comedian and started playing politics in recent years, and his view is a shared view of liberal media, politicians, celebrities and everyday citizens alike. That’s why this “proof” of racism seriously sickens me to my core. This is how people are drawing their conclusion – they’re using black people to smear a party.

While the pictures and names are being thrown around of the Obama’s, ACORN, Al, and Jones, they leave out the FACTS that threaten their point.

People are also equally after Nancy Pelosi, Harry Reid, Chuck Schumer, Barney Frank, and the heads of organizations like ACORN and not their low-level employees.

What’s the common denominator of the abovementioned? Oh, I’m so glad you asked. They’re white! Caucasian! Pale-faces! They’re part of the problem, per a guy like Van Jones’ claim-to-fame talking points.

People going after ACORN couldn’t care less that these employees are black or women or liberal or anything other than corrupt. And, to that end, people don’t necessarily care about these low-level, easily-thrown-under-the-bus employees. What matters is the head of ACORN – the WHITE PEOPLE in power, seemingly using minorities and their plight to create a taxpayer-funded golden goose.

The very people attacking Obama and calling him a socialist are also* (Adverb, meaning in addition to) attacking Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid and Barney “Life’s Too Serious to Smile” Frank! So, that is at least evidence, if not outright proof, of criticism and fear being about issues and not race. I mean, it is, right? Can you use logic* (Noun, meaning a system of principles and reasoning) instead of reactionary, party-line rhetoric to smear based on hyperbolic half truths?

If you oppose two people equally, for the same reasons, and subsequently call them both the same names and use the same tone when describing them, what’s the separating factor that makes it racism for one if one happens to be a different race?

Okay, never mind. I see the logic. We disapprove with the white people based on issues, but we disapprove of minorities because they’re minorities and not because of the issues. So that means we don’t pay attention to the issues with any non-whites; we only pay attention to their skin color.

So that’s why Republicans hate Michael Steele. Oh, wait. They don’t. Hmm. Okay, then; that’s why Republicans protest Bobby Jindal! Oh, you mean they like that guy? Well, I know they all went after Clarence Thomas! Shit. Okay, regrouping… Maybe Marco Rubio? Damn! Shall I continue?

Excusing yourself from liberal media’s carefully picked-and-chosen storylines, you may stand back and actually see that the very people pretending to take the stand for minorities in this country are actually the ones using minorities as propaganda tools.

When you have to actually use racism to “prove” racism, it pretty much defines your argument. You have none. It’s a type of fear-mongering that the left has been accusing the right of for decades. They toss minorities around like they’re not even people, so long as they can use it as leverage to turn people against Republicans.

I implore everyone to look at the entire situation before judging Obama’s opposition, for they’re not only opposing Obama. They’re opposing an entire system of government, most of which is made of up WHITE elitists who habitually lie, cheat and steal their way to fat-cat status while throwing their vote fodder under the bus once atop the hill.

This shit has gone on long enough. Being the country that cried wolf—especially based on crooked media!—takes focus off of real racism and places it on invented bigotry for means of a power grab.

Think independently to see the whole, not vice versa.

Volunteers Needed!

As a guy who is a little more right than center while being unequivocally against almost everything far-left, I have no problem admitting that the Republicans have really been a disappointment in recent years. On the other side, you may never, ever, as long as you live, find a devoted liberal willing to take responsibility, because it forfeits their blame option. You’d have a better chance of criticizing Obama without being called a racist than finding a liberal willing to admit they may be wrong.

You will be very hard pressed to find liberals, primarily politicians and celebrities, willing to volunteer or lead by example with policies they push. They tend to be the infallible monarchs, the perfect pointers-out of all ills. Their wisdom is divinity personified and their theories—which really aren’t their theories—are to be implemented by the commons while they’re fed pitted olives on private jets.

But if these ideas are so incredibly great, so clearly divine, why aren’t the uber-liberal elitists volunteering to practice what they preach?

Just some basic common sense: If they would, and could show the people that their ideas are truly impeccable and superior to those of their counterparts, the elitists wouldn’t have to resort to smear tactics and the blame game and other methods that they’ve been claiming to stand firmly against for decades.

Nothing’s new news here. It just strikes me as odd every time I see a celebrity (part of America’s top 1%) or a politician preaching about sticking it to the rich, or social justice, or those poor, poor, poor people.

As I watched Bob Beckel berate his brother tonight, screaming the wonders of an extremely large federal government, I wanted to strangle this guy. He’s another in a long line of uber-progressives that think the basic American is ignorant for not wanting government to handle their day-to-day lives and act as a giant bank for the nation’s accumulative wealth.

I’m not a violent person. I certainly don’t harbor the least bit of disdain toward Bob. He’s usually a lighthearted, funny guy – in the patronizing and ironic way I view him. But his stance is so blatantly pathetic. Yet he hasn’t the slightest idea why anyone doesn’t want federal government controlling their lives. He really doesn’t. And this makes him and his type dangerous.

I propose that the federal government set up a trust. This is my answer to guys like Beckel and Moore and Garofalo and every other mentally disturbed fat-cat who insists on shitting where they eat. They’re against the very system that continues to make them wealthy. So, let’s let them handle it. Let the rich celebrities bring socialism.

As Ben Stein pointed out to the Taco Bell Chihuahua Jim Carville on Wolf Blitzer’s show, the vast majority of rich people in America are liberals. Yes, plenty are right-leaning, but we’re talking about America’s top 1% -- over 3,000,000 people. The lion’s share of this percentage is aboard Barack’s train and heading toward social justice.

There’s only one problem with this: They want to be exempt. When the rich and famous preach about the injustices in America, they’re usually pressuring the government to step in and take from the rich Wall Street and Big Oil types. When’s the last time you heard anyone flaming celebrities for their fortunes?

So, have the government round up the names of every single American that would rather salute the Cuban flag and seize their money. After all, Sean Penn and Michael Moore and Oliver Stone should be more than willing to give everything they have for the common good. They couldn’t just want everyone else to fund this redistribution, right?

This will fund healthcare for the millions who can’t afford it. It will help fund welfare. Their mansions can be torn down and replaced with solar and wind farms. Bill Maher can give up his lavish property and have it turned into a wildlife refuge for the smelt that continues to keep nearly 40,000 American farmers out of work.

Their cars, jets, jewelry and clothing can be given away to the needy and the remnants auctioned off to further fund the socialist mission. All proceeds profited from their respective works can go directly into the trust, along with the salary of every progressive politician, to keep it flush.

Step up and volunteer, you socialists, and show the American people on good faith that you’re not just looking for the government to take control of our lives. Be good Americans for once and forfeit your fortunes to help create the utopia you know as communist America.

Meanwhile, the rest of us average, hard-working, freedom-loving Americans can be left alone to pursue our own dreams and you can all shut the fuck up about the wonders of incredibly large government taking control of the citizenry to reign in capitalism and redistribute wealth.

If you want it, there are enough of you to make it happen. Get it the fuck done and stop intruding on our lives to make it happen. Just tell Obama you wish to give him your money. He will take it, trust me.

Van-Tastic!

Well, it seems as if Nancy Pelosi finally got what she wanted. The swamp was drained. Of course, she didn’t mean for the all-encompassing swamp to be dredged and purged on her side of the property line. She was hoping for everything right of the fence to be filtered.

The swamp filtration unit had caught a fairly large piece of muck in Van “I ‘Was’ a Communist” Jones. You gotta hand it to those swamp cleaners. They may be few and far between, grossly outnumbered by polluters, but they fished the shit right out of that swamp!

Van Jones is resigning. Obviously, he can’t leave without flaming everyone. The facts were out and in abundance. Jones claims a “smear campaign” was run against him. He’s feigning victimhood, as if he’s the proud, tormented martyr of a witch hunt. Any person in America who managed to watch Fox or read a non-liberal blog or website knows full well that Jones was not misrepresented in the least. In fact, very little reporting had to be done. All that happened was Van Jones’ appearances and speeches, which were all on video, were taken away from his likeminded audience and shown to people who didn’t agree.

The fact that a guy like this was appointed to any backdoor position of authority is a sham. Jones may be resigning, but he’s just the latest in a lot of bad decisions that a supposedly smart President is making. This administration is playing fast and loose with Americans.

Sure, you may have no problem with Van Jones. But if that’s the case, you’re also not fit to be a czar. You’re not fit to hold a prominent position in America. We DON’T do communism. We DON’T do the sympathizing-with-cop-killers thing! We DON’T claim that our President killed 3,000 people as justification to fight a war. We DON’T claim that whites or government (same thing in Jones’ language) are intentionally poisoning immigrants. It doesn’t matter what race you are, stupid is stupid and Janeane Garofalo, the male edition, doesn’t get to advise the President of the United States of America!

The more disheartening part about this is that Fox and a few websites were the only venues covering Van Jones. MSNBC/NBC, ABC, CNN, the New York Times, etc – squadoosh! Nothing! They failed to cover this guy at all. And why? When did news stop being news just because the target of an investigation could end up making the President look bad?

When did we reach a point in America where a loon like this would be suppressed in order to A) not create waves with the admin., and B) make Fox look like the most partisan network in history?

It doesn’t work like that. Just because a network abstains from showing the news does not mean the network doing its duty and running the news is biased! If anything, the real, dangerous bias comes from smothering and changing news in order to effect change.

If WTV1 decided to hire nothing but Spanish anchors, that doesn’t make WTV2 racist if they don’t, especially if the only reason for hiring nothing but Spanish anchors is to call the other network racist!! Get a grip!

Not only are liberal news outlets fixing their own news, but they’re out to fix the entire country’s news! It was tried with the Tea Parties already. By letting Fox treat them fairly while the rest of the establishment insulted them, liberals were able to immediately point at Fox and say that they were promoting Tea Parties. Now, by failing to cover Van Jones, they were able to point their finger again and claim bias.

Obviously, Americans know these tactics well. Fox is exploding because of this. The brainwashed left are furious! And not because Fox is growing, but because in their bereft-of-original-thought pea-brains, they think this means conservatism and racism are on the rise. No. It just means people want real NEWS!

The most important thing about this is Van Jones is at least out a czar position. Radical progressives always take care of theirs, but it makes me feel a little safer to know that Van Jones will not be making any economic decisions. He, by his own admission, has a bias toward white people, capitalism and America in general. Could you imagine what his “initiatives” would be?

The funniest part in all this is that Glenn Beck put this dude to sleep by simply refusing to back down. Nothing against the boycotters, personally; you have a right to boycott. But it didn’t do a lick of good. You were all being played by big corporations who were STILL paying Fox News money – money that Fox was paying Beck as a thank you for the enormous ratings.

Now that I think about it, this is probably exactly why Van Jones hates capitalism!

Any Means Necessary

On Spike TV’s newest show, Surviving Disaster, a former US Navy SEAL illustrates various ways in which regular people can survive unthinkable situations. Tonight’s show, which I thought was fantastic, was about terrorists hijacking an airplane – far from a foreign concept.

I thought it was very interesting that the host pointed out pre-911 advice was to simply comply with terrorists’ demands, but post-911 advice is to fight back. I guess there’s nothing like killing thousands of innocent people in the name of Allah to change civilized thinking. Or maybe the thinking hasn’t changed, but more on that later.

The terrorists seized control of the flight using plastic-carved knives as weapons, along with murderous intimidation. Per the host’s cool-headed perceptions, the fact that one hostage was killed, coupled with the fact that these men were showing their faces, suggested it was a suicide mission. It was time to react in order to save lives.

His advice was to coordinate an attack with four to six people, and to use keys, laptops, or any other weapon to strike the throat. The goal was to incapacitate or kill the terrorists and regain control of the aircraft. In the simulation, everything obviously worked out. I can only hope that if I or anyone else was faced with this situation, the reaction and result would be the same.

After all, this is an extraordinary situation. It’s do-or-die. It’s a terrorist’s life or yours. If these terrorists had to be beat to hell and back or even killed, the ends justify the means.

But would everyone see it that way in hindsight?

What if you were on a plane and had to kill a terrorist to save your own life and the lives of other innocent people? Wouldn’t you think that what you did was necessary to save lives? Now what if America’s Attorney General Eric Holder, along with special interest sections of the citizenry, decided that the force you used was unnecessary?

It’s not at all absurd to think that your plane could be hijacked, nor is it a stretch to believe that, depending on a politician’s political leanings, you could be investigated and tried for your actions. Obviously, regular, everyday citizens and government agencies aren’t the “same,” but at its root, the drastic actions taken to save lives are being investigated. The situation, life-or-death, do-or-die—survival—doesn’t matter as much as morality, per the insistence of Holder and those seated in his Kangaroo Court.

This means that you, although a hero to those affected by the trauma, could be guilty of giving America a bad worldly image. Can you imagine Olbermann in an interview with Garofalo as they label you a hate-mongering, backwards, conservative bully who could have and should have handled it differently? Could you imagine the New York Times releasing your name and address to the zealot leftist readers so they could show up and picket on your lawn? Could you imagine actually going to prison behind this?

It’s happening to brave and proud men and women who used “questionable” tactics to extract information from terrorists. These men and women are exactly like you. The situations were considered extreme. Multiple hijacked planes, WMD, viral agents and other terrorist acts were thought to be eminent, and as we now know, some were thwarted by enhanced interrogations.

How far are we willing to go in America in order to keep a radical liberal’s conscience clean? Not to mention that the investigation, at this point, is smoke and mirrors to bring more political capital in through the back door.

I’m certainly not for torture. I’m against it! I’m also against murder! But in self defense, a person does what they have to do. Why should that change when an employee of a government agency did what was needed in order to keep us all defended? How can you ever fault anyone for using drastic measures in unequivocally drastic times?

I don’t know about anyone else, but if I have to choose between appearing to be on the highest echelon of moral superiority to the rest of the world, or my loved ones remaining safe, the rest of the world can pucker up and kiss my unharmed-from-terrorist-activity ass!