Saturday, October 24, 2009

White House Attacks Worry Moderate Democrats

By JONATHAN ALLEN | 10/23/09 4:47 AM EDT

A White House effort to undermine conservative critics is generating a backlash on Capitol Hill — and not just from Republicans.

**(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Well, well, well. So, Mr. President, let me ask you this. If the Liberal Democrats are admonishing you for this, as well as the Republicans, wouldn't it be safe to say that maybe you should STOP with all this nonsense, and get down to REAL White House issues?)**

“It’s a mistake,” said Rep. Jason Altmire, a moderate Democrat from western Pennsylvania. “I think it’s beneath the White House to get into a tit for tat with news organizations.”

**(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: I totally agree Mr. Altmire, but let's be honest here. Is Mr. Obama even listening to you? I mean, it seems to me that he is letting this go in one big ear and out the other one. I mean, let's face it, Mr. Altmire, Mr. Obama only hears what he wants to hear.)**

Altmire was talking about the Obama administration’s efforts to undercut Fox News. But he said his remarks applied just the same to White House efforts to marginalize the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, a powerful business lobby targeted for its opposition to climate change legislation.

**(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Uh-oh. Mr. President, it looks to me like you are about to piss off some very important people here. Maybe you should back up a little and re-group. I mean, if these people [Chamber of Commerce] backed you during the Presidential Elections, I would say it is safe to say that they will pull their support and you will LOSE in 2012)**

“There’s no reason to gratuitously piss off all those companies,” added another Democrat, Rep. Jim Moran of Virginia. “The Chamber isn’t an opponent.”

**(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Oh, but yes there IS a reason to piss them off. One reason is because they 'oppose' Obama's agenda, and another is because Obama wants 'total control' over everything in sight. I mean, be realistic here. Obama sees the world [America] as one great big giant 'Monopoly' board, and he is moving right along and buying up everything he sees with OUR MONEY! It is a little thing we like to call 'GREED'. )**

POLITICO reported earlier this week on an all-fronts push by the White House to cut the legs out from under its toughest critics, whether it’s the Chamber, radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh or Glenn Beck and the rest of the Fox News operation.

**(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Ok, now why is Obama so afraid of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck? And I find it rather insulting that Sean Hannity, and Micheal Savage were not mentioned. How rude, indeed, and please let us not forget about the many 'bloggers' that are also helping them blow the whistle on the 'Wimp House'. Uhhh, Mr. Wussident, be careful who you declare war on)**

White House Communications Director Anita Dunn has defended the push, saying the administration made “a fundamental decision that we needed to be more aggressive in both protecting our position and in delineating our differences with those who were attacking us.”

**(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: I thought this Maoist was a 'Czar'??? In any case, she is a blithering idiotic Obamabot who believes in a 'welfare state'. ATTACKING YOU??? Oh please. It is called 'TELLING the TRUTH', which is something that 'the annointed one' does not have the mental capacity to do)**

Congressional Republicans counterattacked Thursday. House Minority Leader John Boehner (R-Ohio) said the administration was “targeting those who don’t immediately fall in line” with “Chicago-style politics” aimed at “shutting the American people out and demonizing their opponents.”


Boehner’s No. 2, Minority Whip Eric Cantor (R-Va.) complained that the nation’s problems are growing while the White House “bickers with a cable news network.”

**(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: I am beginning to smell a Conservative victory brewing on the horizon. I love the smell of bar-b-qued POTUS smothered with onions)**

Liberal Democrats have little heartburn over the administration’s attacks on Fox and Limbaugh. But the attacks make moderates uneasy — especially when they extend to the Chamber of Commerce.

**(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Well, I can only suggest that the libturd demoncrap obamabot leftis lunatics go get them some 'R-O-L-A-I-D-S and stay away from 'Taco Hell' and the burritos)**

While Limbaugh and Fox commentators like Beck make no secret of their dislike for Democrats, the Chamber’s Republican lean is partially counteracted by nominal and financial support for pro-business Democrats who need to win votes from pro-business Republicans. The campaign websites of moderate Democrats from across the country are filled with endorsements from the Chamber of Commerce.

Rep. Brad Ellsworth of Indiana, for example, has this testimonial from a Chamber official on his site: “On issues ranging from lowering taxes to increasing trade, Indiana’s businesses and workers have no better friend than Brad Ellsworth.”

Ellsworth got a $5,000 campaign contribution from the Chamber in the past election.

Rep. Sanford Bishop (D-Ga.), another recipient of a Chamber contribution, said Thursday that he had no intention of stepping into the middle of a fight between the White House and the Chamber, but he did note that he had won an award for his voting record from the national Chamber of Commerce.

A senior House Democrat, speaking on the condition of anonymity while questioning the wisdom of the White House strategy, said: “I have no problem with [going after] Rush at all. I don’t have much of a problem with Fox. I think the Chamber’s another story.”

**(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Ha ha ha! I am absolutely certain that Rush Limbaugh could care less about the Wimp House's petty childishness. POTUS and FLOTUS and DOTUS do NOT scare him)**

The Democrat took issue with Chamber leaders in Washington, who he said “do not do a good job of representing the interests of their members.” But he also acknowledged the benefits the Chamber’s goodwill can confer on certain segments of the caucus.

He said that the White House is trying to “take advantage of the discontent within the Chamber. Several flagship companies, including Apple and PG&E, have cut ties with the Chamber to protest its opposition to the climate change legislation that passed the House earlier this year.

Some Democratic critics of the White House attacks say it may strengthen the relationship between the Chamber and moderate Democrats in Congress, who will fast become the organization’s best hope for addressing its concerns if it is frozen out by the White House.

“I don’t think the White House’s relationship with the Chamber will have any effect on individual members’ relationships with the Chamber,” said Indiana Sen. Evan Bayh, a centrist Democrat. “I think we’ll be judged on how we conduct ourselves.”



Ok, as always, I will come back later and get your thoughts on this. I want to know what you think about all this. Could this petty little fight possibly bring us a conservative victory in 2012?

Just Another Way to Ensure that MORE Jobs Will Be Lost as Businesses SHUT DOWN

Disapproving Michelle Obama To Be Printed On All Fast Food Containers


Wow, way to go guys. This is just another GREAT and FANTASTIC way to make sure that MORE companies will go OUT OF BUSINESS, and that even MORE JOBS WILL BE LOST.

And, you know, I have often wondered (even when I was a child) why it was that the two political parties were represented by some kind of animal, such as an 'elephant' for the Republican Party, and a 'donkey' for the Democratic Party.

Well, after viewing this absolutely amazing and lovely picture of FLOTUS on a McDonald's container, I am now completely able to understand exactly WHY the Democratic Party is represented by a 'donkey'.


The Battle Between the White House and Fox News

Published: October 17, 2009

The Obama Administration, which would seem to have its hands full with a two-front war in Iraq and Afghanistan, opened up a third front last week, this time with Fox News.

Until this point, the conflict had been mostly a one-sided affair, with Fox News hosts promoting tax day “tea parties” that focused protest on the new president, and more recently bringing down the presidential adviser Van Jones through rugged coverage that caught the administration, and other news organizations, off guard. During the health care debate, Fox News has put a megaphone to opponents, some of whom have advanced far-fetched theories about the impact of reform. And even farther out on the edge, the network’s most visible star of the moment, Glenn Beck, has said the president has “a deep-seated hatred for white people.”

Administration officials seemed to have decided that they had had enough.

“We’re going to treat them the way we would treat an opponent,” Anita Dunn, the White House communications director, said in an interview with The New York Times. “As they are undertaking a war against Barack Obama and the White House, we don’t need to pretend that this is the way that legitimate news organizations behave.”

Ah, but pretending has traditionally been a valuable part of the presidential playbook. Smiling and wearing beige even under the most withering news media assault is not only good manners, but also has generally been good politics. While there is undoubtedly a visceral thrill in finally setting out after your antagonists, the history of administrations that have successfully taken on the media and won is shorter than this sentence.

Not that they haven’t tried. In his second Inaugural Address, Ulysses S. Grant said he had “been the subject of abuse and slander scarcely ever equaled in political history.” President William McKinley labeled a gathering of the press a “congress of inventors,” and President Franklin D. Roosevelt assigned less favored press members to his “Dunce Club.” Sometimes the strategy worked — or caused no lasting damage. McKinley, like Grant, was elected to a second term. Roosevelt also won a third and fourth.

As Americans turned to TV for news, enmity from presidents soon followed. Vice President Spiro T. Agnew said “self-appointed analysts” at the Big Three networks exhibited undisguised “hostility” toward President Richard M. Nixon, subjecting his speeches to “instant analysis and querulous criticism.” Later, in the dispute with The Times over the Pentagon Papers, Mr. Nixon’s national security adviser, Henry Kissinger, accused the newspaper of treason.

Neither of the Bush presidents had a particularly cozy relationship with the press. George H.W. Bush finished the campaign in 1992 with a bumper sticker that suggested, “Annoy the Media. Vote Bush.” And George W. Bush, in the words of ABC’s Mark Halperin, viewed “the media as a special interest rather than as guardians of the public interest.” Bill Clinton, too, distrusted the press, as did others in his administration. When Vincent Foster, Mr. Clinton’s deputy White House counsel, committed suicide in 1993, he left behind a note accusing the Wall Street Journal’s editorial page of lying.

Even though almost all the critiques contained a kernel of truth, in each instance the folks who had the barrels of ink, and now pixels, seemed to come out ahead. So far, the only winner in this latest dispute seems to be Fox News. Ratings are up 20 percent this year, and the network basked for a week in the antagonism of a sitting president

It could all be written off as a sideshow, but it may present a genuine problem for Mr. Obama, who took great pains during the campaign to depict himself as being above the fray of over-heated partisan squabbling. In his victory speech he promised, “I will listen to you, especially when we disagree.”

(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Yeah, but you are not listening to anyone, because you are too busy TALKING. A person cannot 'listen' if all they are doing is 'talking', and I just want to know, Mr. Wussident, what will it take to get you to shut up and listen? Oh, I know! We could always put some 'duct tape' over your mouth, or just turn off your microphone).

Or not. Under the direction of Ms. Dunn, the administration has begun to punch back. On Sept. 20, the president visited all the Sunday talk shows save Fox News’, with Ms. Dunn explaining that Fox was not a legitimate news organization, but a “wing of the Republican Party.”

The one weapon all administrations can wield is access, and the White House, making it clear that it will use that leverage going forward, informed Fox News not to expect to bump knees with the president until 2010. But Fox News, as many have pointed out, is not in the access business. They are in the agitation business. And the administration, by deploying official resources against a troublesome media organization, seems to have brought a knife to a gunfight.

Tactics aside, something more fundamental is at risk. Even the president’s most avid critics admit he exudes a certain cool confidence. The public impression of him is that if anyone were to, say, talk trash on the basketball court with Mr. Obama, he would not find much space for rent in Mr. Obama’s head.

Mr. Obama has also shown a consistent ability to disarm or at least engage his critics. When he eventually sat for an interview with the Fox News personality Bill O’Reilly two months before the election, it made for great television. But for the time being, détente seems very far away and the gap seems to be widening.

On the official White House Web site, a blog called Reality Check provides a running tally of transgressions by Fox News. It ends with this: “For even more Fox lies, check out the latest ‘Truth-O-Meter’ feature from Politifact that debunks a false claim about a White House staffer that continues to be repeated by Glenn Beck and others on the network.”

People who work in political communications have pointed out that it is a principle of power dynamics to “punch up “ — that is, to take on bigger foes, not smaller ones. A blog on the White House Web site that uses a “truth-o-meter” against a particular cable news network would not seem to qualify. As it is, Reality Check sounds a bit like the blog of some unemployed guy living in his parents’ basement, not an official communiqué from Pennsylvania Avenue.

The American presidency was conceived as a corrective to the royals, but trading punches with cable shouters seems a bit too common. Perhaps it’s time to restore a little imperiousness to the relationship.


Meanwhile, our country is going bankrupt because of the frivolous and unneccessary spending of tax dollars for stimulus packages that go 'belly-up' like a dead guppy in a gold fish bowl, and our troops are getting hammered over in Iraq and Afghanistan and are in dire need of extra help, and unemployment is going through the roof as thousands upon thousands of more jobs are being lost, and more and more people are losing their homes, their families, their lives to rising crime rates, and losing their children to pedophiles who are killing them and throwing them in landfills, and what is the Wussident of the United States more worried about???

He's more worried that someone is SMART enough and INTELLIGENT enough and BRAVE enough to stand up and say NO WE WON'T instead of 'Yes We Can'. He is more worried that WE THE PEOPLE are OPPOSED to his crap and refuse to smoke the Obamacrack he tries to force on us, and we refuse to drink the Obamade that he tries to force us to drink.


I'll get your thoughts and be back.

Stanley McChrystal’s Long War

Published: October 14, 2009

Gen. Stanley A. McChrystal stepped off the whirring Black Hawk and headed straight into town. He had come to Garmsir, a dusty outpost along the Helmand River in southern Afghanistan, to size up the war that President Obama has asked him to save. McChrystal pulled off his flak jacket and helmet. His face, skeletal and austere, seemed a piece of the desert itself.

He was surrounded by a clutch of bodyguards, normal for a four-star general, and an array of the Marine officers charged with overseeing the town. Garmsir had been under Taliban control until May 2008, when a force of American Marines swept in and cleared it. Since then, the British, then the Americans, have been holding it and trying, ever so slowly, to build something in Garmsir — a government, an army, a police force — for the first time since the war began more than eight years ago.

The Marines around McChrystal, including the local battalion commander, Lt. Col. Christian Cabaniss, looked surprised, even alarmed, when McChrystal removed his protective gear. But as the group walked the rutted streets into Garmsir’s bazaar, they began taking off their helmets, too.

“Who owns the land here?” McChrystal asked, peering up the street and into the shops. “Is it owned by the farmers or by landlords?”

It was the sort of question a sociologist, or an economist, would ask. No one offered an answer.

“If you owned 200 acres here, would you live on it, or would you live somewhere else?” McChrystal asked.

The entourage entered the bazaar. The Afghans sensed that an important American had arrived, and they began to gather in groups inside the stalls. Then the general stopped and turned.

“What do you need here?” McChrystal asked.

A translator turned the general’s words into Pashto.

“We need schools!” one Afghan called back. “Schools!”

“We’re working on that,” McChrystal said. “Those things take time.”

McChrystal walked some more, engaging another group of Afghans. He posed the same question.

“Security,” a man said. “We need security. Security first, then the other things will be possible.”

“That is what we are trying to do,” McChrystal said. “But it’s going to take time. Success takes time.”

The questions kept coming, and the answer was the same. After a couple of hours, McChrystal put on his helmet and flak jacket, boarded the Black Hawk and flew to another town.

Success takes time, but how much time does Stanley McChrystal have? The war in Afghanistan is now in its ninth year. The Taliban, measured by the number of their attacks, are stronger than at any time since the Americans toppled their government at the end of 2001. American soldiers and Marines are dying at a faster rate than ever before. Polls in the United States show that opposition to the war is growing steadily.

Worse yet, for all of America’s time in Afghanistan — for all the money and all the blood — the lack of accomplishment is manifest wherever you go. In Garmsir, there is nothing remotely resembling a modern state that could take over if America and its NATO allies left. Tour the country with a general, and you will see very quickly how vast and forbidding this country is and how paltry the effort has been.

And finally, there is the government in Kabul. President Hamid Karzai, once the darling of the West, rose to the top of nationwide elections in August on what appears to be a tide of fraud. The Americans and their NATO allies are confronting the possibility that the government they are supporting, building and defending is a rotten shell.

In his initial assessment of the country, sent to President Obama early last month, McChrystal described an Afghanistan on the brink of collapse and an America at the edge of defeat. To reverse the course of the war, McChrystal presented President Obama with what could be the most momentous foreign-policy decision of his presidency: escalate or fail. McChrystal has reportedly asked for 40,000 additional American troops — there are 65,000 already here — and an accelerated effort to train Afghan troops and police and build an Afghan state. If President Obama can’t bring himself to step up the fight, McChrystal suggested, then he might as well give up.

“Inadequate resources,” McChrystal wrote, “will likely result in failure.”

The magnitude of the choice presented by McChrystal, and now facing President Obama, is difficult to overstate. For what McChrystal is proposing is not a temporary, Iraq-style surge — a rapid influx of American troops followed by a withdrawal. McChrystal’s plan is a blueprint for an extensive American commitment to build a modern state in Afghanistan, where one has never existed, and to bring order to a place famous for the empires it has exhausted. Even under the best of circumstances, this effort would most likely last many more years, cost hundreds of billions of dollars and entail the deaths of many more American women and men.

And that’s if it succeeds.


Ok, here we are, trying to dismantle the Taliban and help build a better state in Afghanistan, and General McChrystal is begging (in a way) for more troops because he is getting his rear-end handed to him on a stick and what is our 'communist-in-chief' doing?

He is too busy over here stomping his feet, and whining and crying like a little 2-year old boy because Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, and Glenn Beck are 'holding him accountable' for his actions and his in-actions.

Our Wussident of the United States is MORE worried about winning a popularity contest, than he is about winning this war and making America safe and protecting our citizens.

Now, correct me if I am wrong, but if the Wussident is indeed making an 'Enemies List', shouldn't he be adding the names of the many 'terror organizations' that would attack us for no other good reason other than the fact that we even exist???

What is it going to take to get him out of office? Because, quite frankly, and to be perfectly blunt, I want his resignation, like YESTERDAY, and to get someone in there [White House] who is going to go over there [Iraq and Afghanistan] and kick some SERIOUS ass and win this f***ing war.

Pelosi Intensifies Pressure for Public Health Plan

Published: October 23, 2009

WASHINGTON — Speaker Nancy Pelosi stepped up the pressure on House Democrats on Friday to support her preferred version of legislation that would require the federal government to sell health insurance in competition with private insurers.

Her action came amid indications that Ms. Pelosi had not locked down the votes for the proposal, the most contentious element in a bill that would provide health insurance to more than 35 million people, at cost of nearly $900 billion over 10 years.

Other provisions of the bill, including enhanced Medicare benefits, could take the total cost over $1 trillion, Democrats said. But they promised to offset the cost and avoid any increase in federal budget deficits.

At a meeting Friday, the chairman of the House Democratic caucus, Representative John B. Larson of Connecticut, called the roll and asked lawmakers to say whether they would vote for a bill including the most liberal, “robust” version of a government insurance plan, similar to Medicare. The results were not definitive because many members were missing and some supported the bill but called for changes. Ms. Pelosi finds herself once again caught between two wings of her caucus: the progressives, who demand a Medicare-like public option, and moderate-to-conservative Democrats, including many from rural areas, where hospitals say they could not survive on Medicare payment rates.

At a meeting with Ms. Pelosi on Thursday, liberal Democrats like Representatives Yvette D. Clarke of New York and Jan Schakowsky of Illinois spoke forcefully for a robust public option.

Ms. Pelosi told them that she had well over 200 votes, but that it was proving difficult to reach the goal of 218.

The House Democratic whip, Representative James E. Clyburn of South Carolina, said Friday that party leaders were considering four variations of the public insurance plan.

“We are trying to find out which one of these approaches will best suit the most people in our caucus,” Mr. Clyburn said.

The Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, is going through a similar exercise, polling his caucus.

In a shift, Mr. Reid told colleagues on Thursday that he was inclined to include a government-run insurance program in the bill that he would take soon to the Senate floor. States would be allowed to opt out if they wanted.

Asked about Mr. Reid’s idea, Ms. Pelosi said, “I don’t think there’s much problem with that.”

Ms. Pelosi said that in shaping the House bill, she was already thinking about “the endgame.” If the two chambers pass disparate bills, as Democrats expect, negotiators from the House and the Senate would try to reconcile the differences.

When it appeared that the Senate bill might not have any government insurance plan, Ms. Pelosi said, it was essential for the House to pass a strong public option, as a counterweight to the Senate. Now, she said, she will consider an alternative favored by some centrist Democrats, who contend that the government plan should not set prices but negotiate payment rates with doctors and hospitals, as private insurers do.

Ms. Pelosi set the health care legislation in its historical context, saying it “sits very comfortably in the path of Social Security and Medicare,” created in 1935 and 1965, respectively.

Mr. Clyburn said the squabbles among Democrats on health care were like the disagreements in the 1960s among civil rights leaders, who had the same goals but sometimes differed on legislative strategy.

The House majority leader, Representative Steny H. Hoyer, Democrat of Maryland, said Friday that the House could take up the health care legislation as soon as Nov. 6 and might meet on Saturday, Nov. 7, to continue work on it.

But Democrats in both chambers have missed many self-imposed deadlines. And many hurdles remain.

House Democratic leaders are still trying to figure out exactly how to limit the use of federal money for abortions. In addition, before taking their bill to the House floor, Democrats need to get a cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office.

Ms. Pelosi said she had not decided whether lawmakers would be allowed to offer amendments on the House floor.

In the Senate, Mr. Reid is considering several alternatives to his proposal for a national public insurance plan. Under one alternative, the public plan would be established, or triggered, only in states that failed to meet certain goals for insurance coverage.

Senator John D. Rockefeller IV, Democrat of West Virginia, said this approach would allow health insurance companies to continue price-gouging for several years.

“A trigger simply delays price competition,” Mr. Rockefeller said. “It is not a substitute for a strong public health insurance option.”

Mr. Reid talked Friday with several moderate Democrats, including Senator Mary L. Landrieu of Louisiana. Ms. Landrieu has said she strenuously opposes “a government-run, taxpayer-supported public option,” but Mr. Reid hopes to change her mind.



I'll get your thoughts on this before I say anything, because as of right now, I no clear idea on what to say, or how to say it, and I don't want to sound like a complete idiot (which in truth, I kind of am when it comes to issues like this) but I will say this much...I still believe that all of this is a really bad idea, and mainly because the 'House' refuses to allow the American people to actually read what is in the 'bill'.

So, I will get your thoughts and be back.

Friday, October 23, 2009

Government Bailouts...Good for America?--Here are the results!

Well, looks like Obama is not as popular as everyone thinks he is.


The Total Number of people who voted in this poll: 622,308

1) Who is most to blame for America’s current economic crisis?
65% voted: Clinton Administration and the Democrats in Congress
12% voted: The Bush Administration
3% voted: Wall Street
15% voted: Banks and sub-prime lenders
2% voted: Real estate and mortgage professionals
0% voted: Investors
1% voted: Home buyers
2) Do you agree government bailouts are the answer to America’s financial crisis?
7% voted: Yes
88% voted: No
5% voted: Undecided
3) Do you believe the American taxpayers should have to foot the bill for our financial systems mistakes?
7% voted: Yes, we have to or we’ll end up in a prolonged recession or worse a depression.
22% voted: No, America is too far in debt already.
69% voted: Absolutely not, the American people should never be responsible for bailing out the private sector.
2% voted: Undecided
4) Do you believe the government bailouts will ultimately rescue our country's financial system?
8% voted: Yes
86% voted: No
6% voted: Undecided
5) Do you believe Barack Obama was the best choice to handle the country's future economic policy?
13% voted: Yes
85% voted: No
3% voted: Undecided

Thank you for your participation.

"Twelve Months of Obama" (Twelve Days of Christmas) Contest

Ha ha ha! Oh yes oh yes oh yes, I am running my first contest!

I would like for all my readers to come up with the BEST 'Twelve Days of Christmas' parody relating to Barak Obama and his...uhhh...accomplishments (or lack thereof).

I know it may be a little unethical to distort the sanctity of such a lovely song, but then, the Lie House and the Obamabot Administration are unethical, so I guess it will be ok.

Make your parody as funny and as silly as you possibly can, and submit them to me through my e-mail listed in my profile--with the word 'parody' in the subject line.

The winning parody will be displayed on my blog (and I may even submit it to a conservative talk show host, in the hopes that it will be read on the air).

Thank you and have a great weekend.

The Lie House

Ok, it is absolutely amazing what kind of videos you can find when you search for one specific thing, and all of a sudden, you just keep finding more.

Well, I have no idea (right now) what to say myself, so I will just let the videos ddo the talking for me, while I work on my next blog topic.

And now, without further ado, I present you with the following videos for your viewing pleasure.

Obama on Healthcare

Obama on Iran 'Not Interested in Victory'

Obama Apology Tour

Obama quote...'We are out of money now'

Top Obama Contradictions

Obama Speaks about the U.S. Constitution

Obama About 'ACORN'

Obama and Marxism

Thursday, October 22, 2009

OMG!--You Have to See and Read to Believe--Here's Some 'Hope & Change' For Ya!!!!

"Obama Administration Believes Blacks Too Stupid To Know For Whom To Vote Without A Big D"

(MY THOUGHT ON THIS: Oh man, ya just gotta love a title like this one, huh? Wow, I bet Obama's voter's didn't see THIS ONE coming. How do ya like yo 'homeie' now, mane?)

Just when you think the most corrupt administration in history can sink no lower, here they go. This is an incredible over-reach by Barack Obama’s “Department of Justice”. Rush Limbaugh touched on this briefly on his show Tuesday.

From the Washington Times:

“KINSTON, N.C. | Voters in this small city decided overwhelmingly last year to do away with the party affiliation of candidates in local elections, but the Obama administration recently overruled the electorate and decided that equal rights for black voters cannot be achieved without the Democratic Party.”

You read that right. Without the all loving, all caring, all benevolent plantation owners of the democrat party, blacks cannot have equal rights. Blacks obviously, according to Barack Obama, are simply not capable of making these tough decisions.

More from the Times:

“The Justice Department’s ruling, which affects races for City Council and mayor, went so far as to say partisan elections are needed so that black voters can elect their “candidates of choice” – identified by the department as those who are Democrats and almost exclusively black.”

“The department ruled that white voters in Kinston will vote for blacks only if they are Democrats and that therefore the city cannot get rid of party affiliations for local elections because that would violate black voters’ right to elect the candidates they want.”

“Several federal and local politicians would like the city to challenge the decision in court. They say voter apathy is the largest barrier to black voters’ election of candidates they prefer and that the Justice Department has gone too far in trying to influence election results here.

“Stephen LaRoque, a former Republican state lawmaker who led the drive to end partisan local elections, called the Justice Department’s decision ‘racial as well as partisan.’”

“’On top of that, you have an unelected bureaucrat in Washington, D.C., overturning a valid election,’ he said. ‘That is un-American.’”

“The decision, made by the same Justice official who ordered the dismissal of a voting rights case against members of the New Black Panther Party in Philadelphia, has irritated other locals as well. They bristle at federal interference in this city of nearly 23,000 people, two-thirds of whom are black.

“In interviews in sleepy downtown Kinston – a place best known as a road sign on the way to the Carolina beaches – residents said partisan voting is largely unimportant because people are personally acquainted with their elected officials and are familiar with their views.”

Let me get this straight, you have a typical small town, where just about everybody either knows everybody else, or at least knows of them, a town that is most made up of black residents, and yet, Barack Obama and his Attorney General, Eric Holder, are telling them they are too stupid to know who to vote for without a big (D) beside the candidate’s name?

What next from our Dear Leader and his “Ministry of Justice,” will it simply be illegal to BE anything but a democrat?

The Times goes on to say:

“Others noted the absurdity of partisan elections since Kinston is essentially a one-party city anyway; no one among more than a half-dozen city officials and local residents was able to recall a Republican winning office here.

“Justice Department spokesman Alejandro Miyar denied that the decision was intended to help the Democratic Party. He said the ruling was based on “what the facts are in a particular jurisdiction” and how it affects blacks’ ability to elect the candidates they favor.”

“’The determination of who is a “candidate of choice” for any group of voters in a given jurisdiction is based on an analysis of the electoral behavior of those voters within a particular jurisdiction,’ he said.

“Critics on the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights are not so sure. ‘The Voting Rights Act is supposed to protect against situations when black voters are locked out because of racism,’ said Abigail Thernstrom, a Republican appointee to the U.S. Commission on Civil Rights. ‘There is no entitlement to elect a candidate they prefer on the assumption that all black voters prefer Democratic candidates.’”

“Kinston is one of the areas subject to provisions of the landmark 1965 Voting Rights Act, which requires the city to receive Justice Department approval before making any changes to voting procedures. Kinston is one of 12,000 voting districts in areas of 16 states, almost exclusively in the South, that the Voting Rights Act declared to have had a history of racial discrimination.

“In a letter dated Aug. 17, the city received the Justice Department’s answer: Elections must remain partisan because the change’s ‘effect will be strictly racial.’”

“’Removing the partisan cue in municipal elections will, in all likelihood, eliminate the single factor that allows black candidates to be elected to office,” Loretta King, who at the time was the acting head of the Justice Department’s civil rights division, wrote in a letter to the city.

This is more than a simple insult to blacks every where, this is a usurpation of our Constitution and a very dangerous development. This sets up a precedent that allows serious manipulation and intimidation by the federal government. And as we are witnessing on a daily basis, Barack Obama and his people only know how to function through threats and intimidation.

I know most of you have heard about the case against the New Black Panthers In Philadelphia, but just in case, let me refresh your memory:


Hey, I just don't know what to say. For once, I think I am actually speechless. I can't even think of any 'one-liners' for this. It is really sad that the President would treat his own voters like this.

But hey, YOU VOTED FOR HIM! How's that 'hope & change' working out for you, now, since your own Prez thinks you are just too 'dumb' to vote for him (or any other libturd demoncrap for that matter) all on your own?

I'll have to get my readers thoughts on this one for sure, because I honestly do not know how to approach this without their help.

Conservatives ROAR; Republicans Tremble


Ha ha ha...Oh, you just got to love the headline in this article. It almost reminds me of that old saying--'I am woman, hear me roar'. But, I have to point out that in the second paragraph, they mentioned Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck--but they forgot about Sean Hannity, Ben Ferguson, Andrew Clark senior, Micheal Savage, and Bill Cunningham.


Jim VandeHei, Mike Allen Jim Vandehei, Mike Allen – Thu Oct 22, 5:51 am ET

Many top Republicans are growing worried that the party’s chances for reversing its electoral routs of 2006 and 2008 are being wounded by the flamboyant rhetoric and angry tone of conservative activists and media personalities, according to interviews with GOP officials and operatives.

(MY THOUGHT ON THIS: Gee, I wonder why? Could it be the fact that the President is trying to re-shape and re-make America? Could it be the fact that he [President] is trying to 'force' us [Americans] to just 'lie down like whipped dogs'? How about this Mr. President--we [conservatives] ARE angry because you DO NOT LISTEN TO REASON!)

Congressional leaders talk in private of being boxed in by commentators such as Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh — figures who are wildly popular with the conservative base but wildly controversial among other parts of the electorate, and who have proven records of making life miserable for senators and House members critical of their views or influence.

(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Uhhh, hey libterds, you forgot about Sean Hannity, Micheal Savage, Ben Ferguson, Bill Cunningham, and Andrew Clark Sr. They are all opposed to your 'agendas' as well).

Some of the leading 2012 candidates are described by operatives as grappling with the same tension. The challenge is to tap into the richest source of energy in the party — the disgust of grass-roots conservative activists with President Barack Obama and their hunger for a full-throated attack on his agenda — without coming off to the broader public as cranky and extreme.

(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Oh, well, maybe that is because we [conservatives] care MORE about America and the people than we do about 'LINING OUR POCKETS WITH OTHER PEOPLE'S HARD EARNED MONEY'! Face it you libturd demoncraps, we "don't work hard so YOU don't have to"!)

Mitt Romney has purposely kept a lower profile and stuck to speeches on specific policy issues, in part to avoid the early trade-off between placating party activists and appearing presidential. Minnesota Gov. Tim Pawlenty, one of the most active potential opponents for Obama in 2012, said that media portrayals of a narrow-minded party could make it harder to attract the middle-of-the-road voters needed to make the GOP a majority party again.

“The commentators are part of the coalition, not the whole coalition,” Pawlenty said in a phone interview. “The party needs to be about addition, not subtraction — but not at the expense of watering down its principles.”

“We need more voices,” said House Minority Whip Eric Cantor of Virginia, one of the party’s up-and-coming leaders. “Our party’s challenge has been that we need to be more inclusive — we need to attract the middle again. ... When one party controls all the levers of power in Washington, they’re going to try and villainize whoever they can on our side. It gives us an opportunity now to try and harness the energy and point it in a positive direction, so that we can attract the middle of the country to the common-sense conservative views that we have been about as a party.”

Political operatives of all stripes like to fancy themselves as coolly controlling practitioners — who can shape public images and direct the activities of party regulars from their perches in Washington.

But the reality of the GOP during the Obama presidency is that the party’s image and priorities are in many ways being imposed on Washington — driven by grass-roots energies that lawmakers and strategists can scarcely control.

At the same time, there are powerful incentives for Washington politicians to play to the crowd and bow to the influence of commentators like Beck, who at the moment is far more famous than any of the GOP’s congressional leaders.

When Republicans such as Rep. Phil Gingrey have complained about these figures in public, most have quickly apologized in the face of outraged phone calls and e-mails from conservative activists.

House and Senate Republicans both seized on the issue of federal funding for the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now after Obama critic Andrew Breitbart launched the controversy on his site with video of two people posing as a pimp and a prostitute in the group’s offices.

As vividly illustrated by Rep. Joe Wilson, elected Republicans are seeing the benefits — national media attention and fundraising — from embracing the trash-talking style of talk show hosts. Wilson went from being a little-known member of the House minority who had repeatedly failed to get on the A-list committees to a cause célèbre for the right wing because he shouted “You lie” at Obama during a joint session of Congress.

(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Ok, and why not mention the 'trash-talk' coming out of the libturd Wimp House from Obama, et al who have been using 'profanity' and vulgar language? Oh, but I guess THAT is 'OK' , right? Guess what? IF IT IS WRONG FOR ONE IT IS WRONG FOR ALL!)

Though he apologized to the president through chief of staff Rahm Emanuel, Wilson moved quickly to exploit his brush with fame, posting Web videos to raise money, appearing on Sean Hannity’s show, getting a coveted invite on “Fox News Sunday” — and even being asked to raise money for some of his conservative colleagues. Most rank-and-file Republicans have to spend hours on the phone pleading for money and relish the chance to be taken seriously by a major Sunday show.

(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Ha! If I had been in Rep. Joe Wilson's shoes, I would NOT have apologized. Apologize for WHAT??? Telling the TRUTH? Give me a FREAKING break! I am sick and tired of the libcraps always whining and crying because we [conservatives] have 'hurt their feelings'. Oh 'boo hoo'--dry it up and GROW UP!)

But some Republicans worry the party could squander an opportunity to capitalize on voters’ concerns about Obama and the Democratic Congress because they come off looking shallow, sharply partisan or just plain odd to persuadable voters.

Warning of the influence of the Fox host, who recently accused Obama of racism against whites, George W. Bush White House veteran Peter Wehner wrote last month: “Beck seems to be a roiling mix of fear, resentment and anger — the antithesis of Ronald Reagan.”

Still, these concerns apparently are not powerful enough to prompt most elected Republicans to take public stands against the rhetoric coming from the web of conservative talk show hosts, websites and public activists.

(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Maybe that is because OUR numbers are growing, and in the end, you libturds may 'win the battle, but we [conservatives] will win the WAR'.

Ed Gillespie, who was counselor to Bush and has started a conservative group called Resurgent Republicans, said his polling shows rising numbers of persuadable voters who are growing disenchanted with the Obama administration’s policies but nevertheless remain invested in the president.

(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Gee, imagine that. Now, I wonder WHY that could be?)

“Our party has to bring those voters along with a critique of policies, not the kind of harsh rhetoric the left used against former President Bush,” Gillespie said.

“Without a good slice of the independents, we are doomed,” said former House Minority Leader Bob Michel (R-Ill.).

The only Republicans standing up to Beck and other conservative activists right now are familiar iconoclasts like Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) and New York Times columnist David Brooks — both of whom are distrusted by many Republicans for their frequent departures from conservative orthodoxy.

(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Maybe that is because they are actually 'CLOSET LIBTURD DEMONCRAPS in 'conservative clothing'. I usually have a pretty jazzy way of putting things-lol)

Graham, earlier this month, mocked Beck’s famous on-air cry and warned that the Fox News talk show host is “not aligned with any party as far as I can tell. He’s aligned with cynicism.” Not long afterward, he was heckled by conservatives at a political event back home.

(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Hahahahahahahahaha!!!)

Brooks, a Republican who has written both favorably and critically about Obama, amplified Graham’s concern with the party’s obsequious relationship with Beck and Limbaugh. “It is a story of remarkable volume and utter weakness,” he wrote. “It is a story as old as ‘The Wizard of Oz,’ of grand illusions and small men behind the curtain.”

(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: I always think of an episode of 'Charmed' when I read an article that proclaims that the Democrats are running scared. I always imagine the 'liberal democrats' as the "nasty demons and warlocks" that the Charmed Ones are after with their trusty old 'vanquishing potions', and it just makes me laugh, because NOW, when I watch 'Charmed' on dvd, that is EXACTLY how I envision it--the 'Charmed Ones' are the "conservatives" and the 'vanquishing potions' are the 'Constitution-Bill of Rights', and the Liberals are the demons and warlocks who are about to be 'banished or vanquished' by REAL DEMOCRACY).

Allies of Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) have detailed for POLITICO how the former GOP presidential nominee is dismayed with the direction of the party and put an unusual amount of time and effort into trying to push the party in a more centrist direction.

All three figures are often irritants to establishment Republicans — but in this case, many Republicans said privately they were in agreement that they need to move beyond the hard-core right to succeed.

But this critique goes to a major fault line within the party. Many activists believe the party lost because McCain failed to present a clear and genuine ideological contrast — and that the party abandoned principles through excessive spending during the Bush years.

(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: No, the REAL REASON that McCain/Palin lost the election is because "THEY ACTUALLY TOLD THE TRUTH"--in my opinion).

The debate means the argument over whether outspoken talk show hosts are reviving a beaten party or trashing its brand is likely to persist through the 2010 midterms and into the 2012 presidential primary.

(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Uhhh, excuse me, libturds,but could you please refrain from 'counting-your-chickens-before-they-hatch', because we [conservatives] are not a 'beaten, trashed, or dead' party just yet. We have only just begun to fight, and guess what? We are not wearing boxing gloves--we are wearing "BRASS KNUCKLES").

On the one hand, the GOP seems to be surging a bit as it sharpens its attacks. The party is doing better than it has in recent history when it comes to generic matchups for the 2010 midterms. Beck, other Fox News commentators and Breitbart are clearly landing some punches on Obama.

Their efforts helped stoke turnout at the August town halls, forced the mainstream media and Obama himself to reckon with a scandal at ACORN and incendiary comments and led to the resignation of green jobs czar Van Jones.

On the other hand, the party’s image more broadly remains in the dumps. An ABC News/Washington Post poll this week found that only 20 percent of those surveyed consider themselves Republicans. A larger study by the Pew Research Center this spring captured a similar trend: The share of independents in the electorate is the highest in 70 years (36 percent), while the share of voters who call themselves Republicans is the lowest in 30 years (23 percent, compared with 35 percent for Democrats).

Republicans in Congress are even more unpopular than the very unpopular Democrats who are running the House and the Senate. This suggests something has to change for a true GOP resurgence to take place.

Karl Rove, the chief political strategist for Bush, said impressions of the Republican Party as a captive of a fringe reflect “a cynical and dismissive and small-minded view of who the American voter is.

“The question will be whether the Republican candidates next year can talk about a lot of kitchen-table issues and the deficit and spending,” Rove said. “Rush Limbaugh won’t be on the ballot.”

(MY THOUGHTS ON THIS: Which is UNFORTUNATE for America, because he [Rush Limbaugh] is just too damned honest to be a politician. Although he would make a DAMNED FINE President).

This big tension is playing out in a smaller way in the special election in upstate New York. Congressional leaders are backing moderate Dede Scozzafava, despite her liberal views on abortion and other issues, because they think she has the best chance of winning this swing district. Conservatives, including many who participated in the much-publicized “tea party” protests, are convinced she is insufficiently Republican, so they are throwing their support and money to third-party candidate Doug Hoffman.

The result: Polls show the Republican vote could be so split that a lackluster Democratic candidate could pull off a win. If Republicans blow this race, it will leave the GOP holding only two of New York’s 29 House seats. A decade ago, it had 14, most of which were occupied by Northeast moderates who no longer feel welcome in the party and were voted in by independents who remain very skeptical of the party’s policy solutions.

Jonathan Martin contributed to this story.

This is the second of a two-part look at the marginalization of the GOP. Part I: Obama strategy: Marginalize critics.


Well, well, well. Is it truly possible that we have the republicans trembling at the mere sound of our outraged voices? All of this also kind of reminds me of a song that I would now like to dedicate to the lunatic leftist libturd demoncraps--

"All Hell's Breaking Loose" by KISS.

Key Senators May Rebuff Obama on Health Care

Hey, is it just me, or does it look and sound like Obama is losing his control over the House? It seems to me that the more he tries to 'push' or 'force' this issue, the more his OWN PEOPLE are pushing back and saying 'no' to him.

I may be wrong (and God I "hope" I'm not) but I think I smell a victory on the horizon for America if these Obama opposers vote against this Obamacare plan.


By CHARLES BABINGTON, Associated Press Writer Charles Babington, Associated Press Writer – 2 hrs 24 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The Democrats' control of a hefty majority in the Senate — plus the House — would suggest that President Barack Obama is within reach of overhauling the nation's health care system this fall.

But the numbers mask a more complicated reality: Obama and Democratic leaders have modest leverage over several pivotal Senate Democrats who are more concerned about their next election or feel they have little to lose by opposing their party's hierarchy.

One is still smarting from being forced to abandon next year's election. Another had to leave the Democratic Party to stay in office. And some are from states that Obama lost badly last year.

These factors will limit the President's ability to play his strongest card — an appeal for party loyalty and Democratic achievement — in trying to muster the 60 votes his allies will need this fall to overcome a Republican filibuster in the 100-member Senate.

'When lawmakers face a tough vote, their uppermost thought is "survival,"' said Alan Simpson, a Wyoming Republican who spent three terms in the Senate.

On very few occasions, Simpson said, then-President George H.W. Bush asked him to cast a vote likely to cause him political problems back home. That was perhaps three times in 18 years, said Simpson, who held a GOP leadership post. "I swallowed hard and went over the cliff," he said.

But it's a sacrifice that presidents and party leaders should not count on, he said.

The Democratic leaders' limited leverage will complicate the push for allowing the government to sell insurance in competition with private companies. Some Senate Democrats who oppose the idea are from states that voted heavily against Obama last fall.

Democratic Sen. Blanche Lincoln faces a potentially tough re-election race next year in Arkansas, where Obama lost to Republican John McCain by 20 percentage points. She says she will base her health care votes on what is best for Arkansans.

Choice and competition among insurers are good, Lincoln said, but "I've ruled out a government-funded and a government-operated plan."

Sen. Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, where Obama lost by a similar margin, said she might be willing to let some states try "fallback or trigger" mechanisms that would create a public option if residents don't have enough insurance choices.

But she told reporters, "I'm not for a government-run, national, taxpayer-subsidized plan, and never will be."

Another Democratic senator, who also may prove wary of Obama's overtures, takes the opposite stand.

"I would not support a bill that does not have a public option," said Sen. Roland Burris, D-Ill. "That position will not change."

Burris' willingness to bend could prove crucial this fall if Obama and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., need every possible vote in crafting a compromise, such as a national public option that is triggered if certain insurance availability targets aren't met.

But Burris may be in no mood to play ball. Obama and other top Democrats sharply criticized his appointment to the Senate in December by an ethically tainted governor, Illinois' Rod Blagojevich, and they forced Burris to abandon hopes of winning election in 2010 by making it clear they would not back him.

In short, Burris, 72, has virtually nothing to lose by defying his party's leaders and voting as he pleases.

Sen. Joe Lieberman of Connecticut is another potentially crucial senator with tenuous ties to the Democratic Party's hierarchy. Rejected by Connecticut's Democratic voters in the 2006 primary, he kept his Senate seat by running as an independent. He now calls himself an Independent Democrat.

Lieberman has criticized the health care bill that emerged from the Senate Finance Committee, but it and other health bills are undergoing changes.

Another centrist Democrat whose vote is uncertain is Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana, a political battleground state.

"I want to know what works for families and small businesses," said Bayh, adding that he might back public insurance options run by states, not the federal government.

It's possible that Obama and party leaders eventually will ask Democrats such as Bayh, in the name of party loyalty, to vote to block a GOP filibuster of a health bill even if they plan to vote against the bill on final passage. The strategy might enable Democrats to muster the 60 votes needed on a crucial procedural question and then pass the bill with a simple majority.

Bayh said that if a party leader "is asking some of us to enable the passage of legislation that we think would be harmful to the people of our state, I don't think that's a fair thing to ask."

It's possible that centrist Democrats are holding out for favors from Obama and party leaders, such as pet projects for their states or help in their next campaign. Obama already has lavished special attention on some of them.

He invited Bayh to the White House last week for a chat about health care and the deficit. In an interview that led to good publicity back home, Bayh told Indiana reporters that the president "was asking for my leadership on both of those issues."


Ok, after reading (and re-reading) this article, I just want to say that right now, my only 'hope & change' is the "hope" that these Dems who are in opposition of Obamacare will "change" IN FAVOR of the rest of America who opposes this healthcare plan/bill.

What do you all think of this? Is it possible that Obama is losing control over his 'Obamabots' in the Senate? Is there even a small chance that we [conservative America] will be able to declare a victory over this Obamanation that has befallen our beloved country?

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

PURE EVILNESS (Story Out of South Memphis TN)--UPDATE


Ok, here is an update on the story I posted the other day about the house fire that left a three-year old boy dead.

This story is from the WREG News Channel 3 Memphis website.

(Memphis 10/21/2009) Monday, two toddlers who are left home alone are trapped in a duplex as flames shot through the roof.

Three-year-old LaDareon Dunn died. His two year old brother is left clinging to life in intensive care.

The story is already emotional but for many it turns to outrage after hearing Marilyn Wilson, the woman who was with the children's mother as she ran errands, say this. "I really need to get in there to see did my purse burn up because I had my food stamp card and everything in there."

50-year-old Marilyn Wilson's words sent chills down the spines of those who watched the news in horror Monday but Wilson's family says it's not what it seems. Linda Hays, a family friend, says Marilyn Wilson has a long history of mental illness.

"I think she's been crucified and the people don't really understand that she doesn't even understand what's happening yet. Her mind is gone and she needs help," says Hays.

"It's not fair because you're listening to what she said and me knowing that she doesn't even have a food stamp card. She doesn't realize that these are her nieces and nephews at this point. She doesn't even know what's going on," Hays continued.

That could explain the confused look Wilson had as she faced a judge Wednesday morning. While questioning her about the fire, police realized she had a three-year-old warrant for theft of property, driving on a suspended license and violation of vehicle registration. The family hopes she gets the help she needs.

"She has real issues that need to be dealt with. She needs help," said hays.

The outrage also continues over Shelby County District Attorney Bill Gibbons not charging the mother in the case. Gibbons issued a statement Wednesday morning.

In it he says that it would not be appropriate to make a decision to charge the mother or anyone else in this case without having all the facts.

Harold Collins, a spokesperson for the DA's office, says they understand how emotional this case is but they cannot let their emotions determine the kind of action they make. Right now, they are waiting on reports from other agencies before they make a decision.

"Before we make a decision we have to have those reports. The Memphis Police Department we're still waiting on the Memphis Fire Department report. We're also waiting on the Shelby County Medical Examiners report," said Collins.


GOP Senator Says Obama Showing Nixonian Tendencies

By BEN EVANS, Associated Press Writer Ben Evans, Associated Press Writer – 3 mins ago
WASHINGTON – The third-ranking Senate Republican said Wednesday the Obama administration appears to be launching a Richard Nixon-like political strategy of making an "enemies list" of people who disagree with the president.

Sen. Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, who once worked in President Nixon's administration, warned the White House that such a "street brawl" approach of attacking political opponents "can get you in a lot of trouble."

Alexander offered no evidence that Obama is developing an actual list, as Nixon famously created for his opponents. But, he said, "I have an uneasy feeling only 10 months into this new administration that we're beginning to see the symptoms of this same kind of animus developing."

"It's a mistake for the president of the United States," he said. "Let's not start calling people out and compiling an enemies list."

White House spokeswoman Gannet Tseggai responded that it's Republicans who "seem to be formulating lists of people and policies to oppose" while the president "is focused on tackling the list of critical priorities that Washington has ignored for too long."

The president "remains committed to working with Republicans to include their best ideas, even if he doesn't get their support," Tseggai said.

Alexander's criticism, which echoed weekend remarks from Karl Rove, the former adviser to President George W. Bush and a Fox News contributor, comes amid an unusual public feud between Fox News and the White House. Alexander also cited widening disputes between the administration and business groups such as the insurance industry, Wall Street banks and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.

Several top administration officials have sharply criticized Fox News in recent days, saying the cable television channel acts like a wing of the Republican Party and shouldn't be viewed as a legitimate news organization.

The president bypassed "Fox News Sunday" during a string of appearances on news shows recently, and Fox News officials have said the White House threatened a boycott. The White House has denied that and says it will book administration officials on Fox News shows.

The administration also has taken on the Chamber of Commerce, for example, suggesting the group is out of touch with the business community on health care, climate change and other issues.


Ok, if anyone remembers the 'Nixon Years'--and "Watergate"--I just have one (maybe two) questions:

If this is in fact true, and Obama is sporting a 'Nixonian' Tendency here, could it be that we MAY just have another "Watergate" on our hands??? If so, does anyone else besides me smell another "RESIGNATION" brewing on the horizon--IF THIS IS INDEED TRUE???

Ok, ok, ok---I admit it---I am in love with 'conspiracy theories'. So sue me (since I work for Pizza Hut, you won't get much! LOL!).

Big Government May Set Your Salary

From the "Washington Examiner"-----

Beyond AIG: A bill to let Big Government set your salary
By: Byron York
Chief Political Correspondent
March 31, 2009
House Financial Services Committee Chairman Rep. Barney Frank, D-Mass., left, talks with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner, right, and Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, on Capitol Hill Tuesday, March 24,2009. Frank's committee has passed a bill giving Geithner extensive control over salaries of employees working at companies receiving government bailout funds. (AP Photo/Evan Vucci)
It was nearly two weeks ago that the House of Representatives, acting in a near-frenzy after the disclosure of bonuses paid to executives of AIG, passed a bill that would impose a 90 percent retroactive tax on those bonuses. Despite the overwhelming 328-93 vote, support for the measure began to collapse almost immediately. Within days, the Obama White House backed away from it, as did the Senate Democratic leadership. The bill stalled, and the populist storm that spawned it seemed to pass.

But now, in a little-noticed move, the House Financial Services Committee, led by chairman Barney Frank, has approved a measure that would, in some key ways, go beyond the most draconian features of the original AIG bill. The new legislation, the "Pay for Performance Act of 2009," would impose government controls on the pay of all employees -- not just top executives -- of companies that have received a capital investment from the U.S. government. It would, like the tax measure, be retroactive, changing the terms of compensation agreements already in place. And it would give Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner extraordinary power to determine the pay of thousands of employees of American companies.

The purpose of the legislation is to "prohibit unreasonable and excessive compensation and compensation not based on performance standards," according to the bill's language. That includes regular pay, bonuses -- everything -- paid to employees of companies in whom the government has a capital stake, including those that have received funds through the Troubled Assets Relief Program, or TARP, as well as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.

The measure is not limited just to those firms that received the largest sums of money, or just to the top 25 or 50 executives of those companies. It applies to all employees of all companies involved, for as long as the government is invested. And it would not only apply going forward, but also retroactively to existing contracts and pay arrangements of institutions that have already received funds.

In addition, the bill gives Geithner the authority to decide what pay is "unreasonable" or "excessive." And it directs the Treasury Department to come up with a method to evaluate "the performance of the individual executive or employee to whom the payment relates."

The bill passed the Financial Services Committee last week, 38 to 22, on a nearly party-line vote. (All Democrats voted for it, and all Republicans, with the exception of Reps. Ed Royce of California and Walter Jones of North Carolina, voted against it.)

The legislation is expected to come before the full House for a vote this week, and, just like the AIG bill, its scope and retroactivity trouble a number of Republicans. "It's just a bad reaction to what has been going on with AIG," Rep. Scott Garrett of New Jersey, a committee member, told me. Garrett is particularly concerned with the new powers that would be given to the Treasury Secretary, who just last week proposed giving the government extensive new regulatory authority. "This is a growing concern, that the powers of the Treasury in this area, along with what Geithner was looking for last week, are mind boggling," Garrett said.

Rep. Alan Grayson, the Florida Democrat who wrote the bill, told me its basic message is "you should not get rich off public money, and you should not get rich off of abject failure." Grayson expects the bill to pass the House, and as we talked, he framed the issue in a way to suggest that virtuous lawmakers will vote for it, while corrupt lawmakers will vote against it.

"This bill will show which Republicans are so much on the take from the financial services industry that they're willing to actually bless compensation that has no bearing on performance and is excessive and unreasonable," Grayson said. "We'll find out who are the people who understand that the public's money needs to be protected, and who are the people who simply want to suck up to their patrons on Wall Street."

After the AIG bonus tax bill was passed, some members of the House privately expressed regret for having supported it and were quietly relieved when the White House and Senate leadership sent it to an unceremonious death. But populist rage did not die with it, and now the House is preparing to do it all again.

Byron York, The Examiner’s chief political correspondent, can be contacted at His column appears Tuesday and Friday, and his stories and blog posts can be read daily at


Ok, Ben Ferguson is discussing this on his show right now here in Memphis, and I have been trying to listen to it (between going back and forth cleaning my house and cooking dinner and trying to post on the blog--I am such a multi-tasker) that if I am reading and understanding this all correctly (and to hear Ben tell it on his show) this is absolutely crazy.

Now, the question that Ben asked is 'If the government came into your company and started telling you how you are going to run your company and said to "cut" peoples' salaries by 90%--would you continue to stay and work there'?

My guess is not 'no', but "HELL NO"!!! Now, I am absolutely terrible at mathematics (even in school it was my WORST subject as I was very lucky to make as high a grade as a 'D') but someone who makes $100,000 a year or more--to take a 90% pay cut is a hell of a lot of money. I mean I work at Pizza Hut for peanuts and a 90% pay cut for me, I would be litterally working FOR FREE. I may as well not even clock in (or show up for that matter).

But this has nothing to do with Pizza Hut, but with these other major, major businesses and companies that got bailouts and I really think this is just wrong. It is not the governments' business--they [government] they just have no place in our private owned businesses.

I mean, correct me if I am wrong, PLEASE, but since when is it the government's business how we own, operate, and run our companies or how much we pay our employees?????? Our country is turning more and more into a 'communist state' by the day when the President of the United States thinks that it is HIS J-O-B to own the automotive industry, the banks, the insurance companies, etc etc etc.

Did I suddenly wake up on a "life sized Monopoly board" where Obama owns everything except 'Boardwalk' and 'Park Place' and THOSE are NEXT?!?

Is the White House Building an "Enemies List"?

Ok, very long post, I know. But, listening to the Sean Hannity Show prompted me to do a little research on this so-called 'White House Enemies List', and the White House's repeated attempts to deny such a list even exsists.

During the course of my research, I found the following articles from various web sites. I should have saved that particular information, but I didn't--however--I will re-search those sites and post them to this later. So, please forgive me on that error.

Here are the articles:


ARTICLE # 1---

Is the White House Building an "Enemies List"?

August 18, 2009 - 5:47am.

(AFP Photo)The top Republican on the House's oversight committee asked the White House on Monday about an e-mail from a top political adviser urging support for a health care overhaul and whether officials are collecting names of President Barack Obama's critics.

In a letter to White House counsel Greg Craig, Rep. Darrell Issa, R-Calif., asked for details about who received a health care e-mail signed by Obama adviser David Axelrod. Issa also wanted to know how, exactly, the White House was using a separate e-mail account designed to track what it called "fishy" claims about its proposed overhaul — an account that was disabled Monday afternoon.

"I am concerned about the possibility that political e-mail address lists are being used for official purposes," Issa wrote. "This, again, raises questions about this administration blurring the lines between political and official business."

A White House spokesman traveling with Obama on a trip to Arizona did not have immediate comment. But administration officials have been dismissive of complaints that people had received unsolicited e-mail messages or that the administration was compiling an enemies list as conservative Web sites and talk radio programs have alleged.

"The fear has been expressed that the White House was asking neighbors to inform on neighbors in a government-led data collection effort," said Issa, the ranking member on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee.

Weeks ago, White House officials asked the public to share critics' e-mails so they could fight back and correct the misconceptions. Because those e-mails are official correspondence with the White House, they must be preserved — unaltered — for decades and eventually released to the public through the National Archives.

Issa said he wants an answer on how the administration is archiving those e-mails and what protections would be put in place to prevent it from become an enemies list.

White House spokesman Robert Gibbs has faced questions about the practice during recent briefings with reporters and had treated them with a dismissive tone.

"All we're asking people to do is, if they're confused about what health care reform is going to mean to them, we're happy to help clear that up for you. Nobody is keeping anybody's names," he said on Aug. 6.

Issa on Monday also cited reports that some people received the e-mail even though they never signed up. Critics say that suggests the White House combined its taxpayer-funded list with member rolls from other political groups.

The White House has adamantly denied that claim. Administration officials have said the e-mail from Axelrod went only to people who signed up for a White House e-mail list typically used to provide updates on the president's speeches.

Copyright © 2009 The Associated Press



Obama's plan: Undermine, discredit all critics
October 21, 2009 - 6:56am.
President Barack Obama: This is war (Reuters)


President Barack Obama and the White House propaganda machine are working overtime to undermine critics, particularly those on the right or affiliated with the Republican Party.

The systematic attacks against right-wing Fox News is part of a what Politico.Com calls a coordinated campaign to "marginalize the most powerful forces behind the Republican Party, setting loose top White House officials to undermine conservatives in the media, business and lobbying worlds."

The campaign invokes memory on former President Richard M. Nixon, who compiled an "enemies list" of media organizations and political foes and then set loose the vast resources of the White House to destroy those enemies.

Comparisons with Nixon, who resigned in disgrace during the Watergate scandal, is the last thing the Obama White House wants or needs but such comparisons are inevitable when the administration cranks up a war of words with critics.

Writes Ruth Marcus in The Washington Post:

There’s only one thing dumber than picking a fight with people who buy ink by the barrel -- picking a fight with people who don’t even have to buy ink. The Obama administration’s war on Fox News is dumb on multiple levels. It makes the White House look weak, unable to take Harry Truman’s advice and just deal with the heat. It makes the White House look small, dragged down to the level of Glenn Beck. It makes the White House look childish and petty at best, and it has a distinct Nixonian -- Agnewesque? -- aroma at worst.

Other Presidents have used enemies lists to try and discredit their critics. Bill Clinton used White House resources to discredit former lovers. George W. Bush sent his surrogates out to attack the left.

But the Obama campaign is gathering increasing attention because he is the candidate who promised to "change the way Washington works." Some now wonder if he is the one who has changed.

The Post's Marcus also writes:

Where the White House has gone way overboard is in its decision to treat Fox as an outright enemy and to go public with the assault. Imagine the outcry if the Bush administration had pulled a similar hissy fit with MSNBC.

Politico weighs in:

With a series of private meetings and public taunts, the White House has targeted the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the biggest-spending pro-business lobbying group in the country; Rush Limbaugh, the country’s most-listened-to conservative commentator; and now, with a new volley of combative rhetoric in recent days, the insurance industry, Wall Street executives and Fox News.

Obama aides are using their powerful White House platform, combined with techniques honed in the 2008 campaign, to cast some of the most powerful adversaries as out of the mainstream and their criticism as unworthy of serious discussion.

Press secretary Robert Gibbs has mocked Limbaugh from the White House press room podium. White House aides limited access to the Chamber and made top adviser Valerie Jarrett available to reporters to disparage the group. Everyone from White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel to White House Communications Director Anita Dunn has piled on Fox News by contending it’s not a legitimate news operation.

All of the techniques are harnessed to a larger purpose: to marginalize not only the individual person or organization but also some of the most important policy and publicity allies of the national Republican Party.

So much for the President who promised to build bridges and reach out to his enemies. Instead, he is giving ammunition to his political opposition.

"This is a White House engaging in its own version of the media enemies list," says former Bush senior adviser Karl Rove. "It’s unhelpful for the country and undignified for the president of the United States."



White House: Fox News is 'not really news'
October 19, 2009 - 6:36am.

Senior White House aides Sunday continued their war of words with right-wing Fox News Channel, saying the cable service is "not really news."

This is news?

Appearing on ABC's "This Week," David Axelrod is what Fox dishes out daily on is "not really news" and added "they're not really a news station."

"It’s really not news — it’s pushing a point of view," Axelrod told ABC host George Stephanopolis. "And the bigger thing is that other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way, and we’re not going to treat them that way. We’re going to appear on their shows. We’re going to participate but understanding that they represent a point of view."

Axelrod said Fox owner Rupert Murdoch is more concerned with making money than offering real news and information.

"Mr. Murdoch has a talent for making money, and I understand that their programming is geared toward making money," he said.

White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel continued the assault during an appearance on CNN's "State of the Union."

Said Emanuel:

It’s not so much a conflict with Fox News. I suppose the way to look at it and the way … the president looks at it, we look at it is: It’s not a news organization so much as it has a perspective. And that’s a different take. And more importantly, is not have the CNNs and the others in the world basically be led in following Fox, as if what they’re trying to do is a legitimate news organization.

Meanwhile, Fox News Anchor Chris Wallace said Sunday the White House is refusing to provide guests for talk shows on that channel.



Obama: Quit Listening to Rush Limbaugh if You Want to Get Things Done
Obama warned Republicans to quit listening to Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats, during a White House discussion on his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.
By NY Post

Friday, January 23, 2009

WASHINGTON -- President Obama warned Republicans on Capitol Hill today that they need to quit listening to radio king Rush Limbaugh if they want to get along with Democrats and the new administration.

"You can't just listen to Rush Limbaugh and get things done," he told top GOP leaders, whom he had invited to the White House to discuss his nearly $1 trillion stimulus package.

One White House official confirmed the comment but said he was simply trying to make a larger point about bipartisan efforts.

"There are big things that unify Republicans and Democrats," the official said. "We shouldn't let partisan politics derail what are very important things that need to get done."

That wasn't Obama's only jab at Republicans today.

While discussing the stimulus package with top lawmakers in the White House's Roosevelt Room, President Obama shot down a critic with a simple message.

"I won," he said, according to aides who were briefed on the meeting. "I will trump you on that."

The response was to the objection by Rep. Eric Cantor (R-Va.) to the president's proposal to increase benefits for low-income workers who don't owe federal income taxes.

Click here to read the full story from the NY Post.


Now, I may be wrong, but according to what I have been hearing is that the Obama Administration is making an 'enemies list' of insurance companies, Fox News, Rush Limbaugh, Sean Hannity, et al that oppose his health care plan. So, my good conservative people, help me out here and enlighten me if I am wrong or misunderstanding what is going on.

Because, it really sounds to me like there is an 'enemies list' building at the White House, that the White House officials just want us to THINK does not exsist, because of all the unnecessary, childish, and pathetically petty attacks against, Rush Limbaugh, et al.

Can I get some enlightenment here, folks?

Thank you.

Tuesday, October 20, 2009

PURE EVILNESS (Story Out of South Memphis TN)

Some of you will be sickened by what you are about to see and hear. In the following video, from a news station here in Memphis, Tn--a woman and her sister leave 2 children ALONE-(one child is 2 years old the other is 3 years old)--so that the mother and aunt could go shopping. The house caught fire--the three year old died, the 2 year old is fighting for his life at the hospital.

Now, if you listened carefully, the aunt was asked if she 'regretted' leaving the children alone--her answer was--"NOPE". All the aunt was concerned about was--get ready for it--HER PURSE AND HER FOOD STAMPS!!!!!!!!

This is outrageous. The neighbors were distraught, crying and had to be comforted. The mother and the aunt however--all they cared about was the fact that the food stamps are probably destroyed and the mother didn't get to finish her shopping.

Personally, I believe that the mother and the aunt BOTH should go to prison for the rest of their lives. What do you think about this?

Sunday, October 18, 2009

Louisiana Justice of the Peace Refuses to Marry Inter-Racial Couple

Ok. I just don't see what the problem is here. Here we have two people who love each other and want to get married. HOWEVER, the justice of the peace has now 'disturbed the peace' with his racial bigotry and refused to marry them.

The justice of the peace maintains that he is not a 'racist' and that he is not a 'bigot'. Ok, well, what the hell do you call it?!? An African-American male and a Caucasion female want to get married...and you tell them no BECAUSE they are an 'inter-racial' couple.

HELLO!!! That spells 'racist' and 'bigot' to me.

And let's not forget that comment about how 'the children of inter-racial couples suffer'...oh for the love of GOD! ALL children suffer ridicule and criticism at some point in their lives for one thing or another. An example: ME.

I was ridiculed as a child for having 'foster parents'. I was also ridiculed for having to wear 'glasses' and I was called 'four-eyes' so many times that I thought that was my name. Hell, I was even made fun of because of my MIDDLE name. And guess what???

I AM NOT A CHILD OF MIXED PARENTS!!! So, "THAT" is not even a credible reason to deny this couple a marriage license. Try again, please.

Also, he [Justice of Peace] tried to say that 'inter-racial marriages do not last long'. Guess what??? There are PLENTY of same race marriages that end in divorce, as well. So, "THAT" too is not a credible arguement, Mr. Justice of the Peace.

See, (and, as always, this is just MY personal opinion), this is just another reason why our country is in such a f***** up mess right now. There is way too much 'racial this'and 'racial that' instead of trying to look at people as just 'people'....

I am just so FED UP with all of this, that I don't even know how to end this post.

Don't Ask, Don't Tell--WTF!?!

Ok, I may be a lesbian, but I have to say that I am really ASHAMED of and EMBARRASSED by the 'gay & lesbian' community right now, as well as with our President.

Now, personally, I have no problem with gays and lesbians serving in the military. HOWEVER, right now, this is NOT the major issue that should be addressed. Right now, our U.S. military soldieers are being picked off left and right, and there is a HUGE need for a massive troop surge in Afghanistan. THAT is what is important RIGHT NOW.

Our President is dragging his feet on the issue of sending more troops to Afghanistan just so he can secure the gay and lesbian community's future support to get re-elected for a second term at the White House.

Our military leaders have been begging our President to send more troops--he won't even TALK about this issue! Instead, he is more concerned about keeping the gay and lesbian community 'happy and in his pocket'.

Our military commanders are requesting moore troops--40,000--to be sent to Afghanistan, but the President is more worried about gays and lesbians serving 'openly' in the military.

Like I said, I have no problem with gays and lesbians in the military. But THIS should not be the President's 1st priority right now. Right now, our first priority should be sending more troops (more than 40,000 especially) to Afghanistan and we WIN this thing. If the gays and lesbians want to serve in the military and defend our country--THAT IS FINE--but don't make this our military's FIRST PRIORITY.

This is just my personal opinion and feelings on this.

Ben Ferguson Show

Ronald Reagan Speech--A very good lesson for Obama to learn!

Ronald Reagan Speech--A very good lesson for Obama to learn!
Government's first duty is to protect the people, not run their lives.


The Conservative Underground Member Blogs Headline Animator

in the news today