Let the democrat and liberal weeping and cries of "Dastardly racist bigot homophobic cheating scum sucking Bush-supporters!" commence!
I mean, it's far too early to call, but it all looks so good! He's only up by about 4% I think right now, but hope has been so far away since Nov 2009 that even the faintest glimmer makes Conservatives weak in the knees.
More later!
Tuesday, January 19, 2010
Monday, January 18, 2010
Brown vs. Croakley
This is to the wire. The polls look good in favor of Brown, but the cynic in me holds out that with the ACORN/Black Panther policies that helped get Obama elected and the outright CHEATING that got Chris Gregoire elected over Dino Rossi (she got 1/3 recounts and still got placed in office) in WA State will come into play.
Obama is out "stumping" and wasting his time because he knows that the success of his hopefully doomed healthcare bill is riding in the balance. And Brown is a social media HERO with 3-1 fans in the Twitter and Facebook areanas while his opponent is playing old school policcs and hoping BO is enough to drag her over the finish line.
Not so. Here's hoping. We'll know for sure on Wednesday. They can't cheat if it's not close, right?
Hey, and wasn't the GOP supposed to be dead?
Obama is out "stumping" and wasting his time because he knows that the success of his hopefully doomed healthcare bill is riding in the balance. And Brown is a social media HERO with 3-1 fans in the Twitter and Facebook areanas while his opponent is playing old school policcs and hoping BO is enough to drag her over the finish line.
Not so. Here's hoping. We'll know for sure on Wednesday. They can't cheat if it's not close, right?
Hey, and wasn't the GOP supposed to be dead?
Friday, January 8, 2010
And like, one year ago, the GOP was dead?
GIVE ME A BREAK! HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA. You should google "Obama" and read what the news sources and reporters that were one minute hailing him are now saying. Here's a snippet of the headlines. Note, I'm not citing anything by FoxNews...who apparently is the news organization that is not even a news organization (Obama's opinion ala Robert Gibbs) and is out to get the WH. Sooo, are all these people in on the anti-Obama conspiracy?
This is bipartisan, see? It's just becoming more and more obvious.
Is Obama being abandoned?
Two key Democratic senators are retiring. Rahm Emanuel might be headed back to Chicago. What's happening with Obama's allies?
http://www.theweek.com/article/index/104787/Is_Obama_being_abandoned
Gibbs Refuses to Address Question About Obama's Broken C-SPAN Promises
It wasn't even a FOX News reporter that asked the question.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703481004574646560762972536.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_RIGHTBelowPepperandSalt
Obama's 'buck' still often stops with Bush
The president continues to lay blame on his predecessor for many problems
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34771917/ns/politics-white_house/
Mr. President, fire somebody, anybody
http://www.smdp.com/Articles-c-2010-01-08-67505.113116_Mr_President_fire_somebody_anybody.html
"In response to the Christmas "underpants bomber," an outraged President Obama called his security and intelligence people together. The headline on the front page of the Los Angeles Times the next day read, "Obama gives his team earful over foiled plot." Our intelligence and security measures failed and almost led to a disaster, and his response was to give the security people "an earful?" I guess he rejected the more severe punishment of giving them a timeout and making them sit in the corner. Mr. President, make it seem like you're taking some kind of strong action. Fire somebody."
Obama's Guantanamo obsession
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/01/07/AR2010010703245.html
And the best one of all:
For Liberalism, It's Hangover Time
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/sns-201001061058tmsjgoldbrgctnjg-a20100107jan07,0,3506542.story
This is bipartisan, see? It's just becoming more and more obvious.
Is Obama being abandoned?
Two key Democratic senators are retiring. Rahm Emanuel might be headed back to Chicago. What's happening with Obama's allies?
http://www.theweek.com/art
Gibbs Refuses to Address Question About Obama's Broken C-SPAN Promises
It wasn't even a FOX News reporter that asked the question.
http://online.wsj.com/arti
Obama's 'buck' still often stops with Bush
The president continues to lay blame on his predecessor for many problems
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/i
Mr. President, fire somebody, anybody
http://www.smdp.com/Articl
"In response to the Christmas "underpants bomber," an outraged President Obama called his security and intelligence people together. The headline on the front page of the Los Angeles Times the next day read, "Obama gives his team earful over foiled plot." Our intelligence and security measures failed and almost led to a disaster, and his response was to give the security people "an earful?" I guess he rejected the more severe punishment of giving them a timeout and making them sit in the corner. Mr. President, make it seem like you're taking some kind of strong action. Fire somebody."
Obama's Guantanamo obsession
http://www.washingtonpost.
And the best one of all:
For Liberalism, It's Hangover Time
http://www.chicagotribune.
Tuesday, January 5, 2010
Our President is Not Protecting Us
"The president’s job is to use every tool he has to keep America safe. The words we’ve heard from Mr. Obama tell us that this president refuses to confront the seriousness of the dangers we face."
"President Obama’s team has scared the nation over the past week with pronouncements so crazy they leave you breathless. But worse still are the decisions they’ve made, decisions that show America is in danger, and that those charged with protecting us are failing to treat this life-and-death struggle as the war that it really is.
------- First, after a terrorist attack was thwarted only by a detonation malfunction and brave airline passengers, a blissfully-clueless Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told an incredulous nation that our “system worked.” That comment was so absurd that no further comment is necessary. She should have been forced to resign within hours.
...
------------- But the worst words came from the president himself. First is “allegedly.” President Obama said that Nigerian Islamic terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab “allegedly” tried to blow up an American airliner to kill hundreds of Americans You use the word “allegedly” if you’re in the media or if you’re prosecuting a criminal, not referring to undeniable acts of war.
The second is that Obama labeled this terrorist act an “isolated extremist.” We know that: (1) he’s affiliated with Al Qaeda, (2) he had help getting onto the plane, (3) he carried military-style high explosives that were likely prepared for him by experts, and (4) was in contact with the same radical Muslim imam who encouraged the Fort Hood terrorist. There are also reports that there may have been an accomplice on the plane. To call him an “isolated extremist” in the face of such facts willfully ignores the obvious truth that this was a coordinated terrorist attack.
And third is the longstanding criticism that Obama does not allow his administration describe what we are involved in the "War on Terror." They speak of "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan—usually with a gratuitous slap at George Bush or Dick Cheney—but not the fact that America is in a global war with Islamic jihadists.
What do these words tell us about President Obama? We need only consider his actions, which are perfectly consistent with his words.
He’s ordered the Christmas bomber to be treated as a criminal defendant in our domestic law enforcement system. That means he’s presumed innocent and protected by every provision in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments in the Bill of Rights, including all the Federal Rules of Evidence and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
One of those rights is the right to legal counsel. As a lawyer, if I were the court-appointed attorney for Abdulmutallab, the first thing I would tell him, “You have the right to remain silent. So shut up. Don’t tell anyone anything, except me. We’ll let the Feds know that you have things you could share, and that they’ll have to offer you a pretty sweet deal if they want to get a peep out of you.”
We should all feel for Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan, who had to go on the Sunday morning talk shows and suggest that somehow this decision to put the bomber in the civilian system was for our nation’s benefit. -- America gets nothing out of that deal. There’s no trade-off. There’s no advantage.
Everything we can do in a law enforcement setting, such as using the FBI for investigation and interrogation, can also be done with someone held by our military for acts of war. We can use every tool of national power when acting against our wartime enemies.
Since he wasn’t wearing a uniform, Abdulmutallab is not even covered by the Geneva Conventions or entitled to prisoner-of-war status. Obama could simply have him executed without a public hearing as a foreign saboteur, the way Democratic President FDR did to Germans we captured on U.S. soil in 1942. (A decision which was upheld after-the-fact by the Supreme Curt in "Ex parte Quirin.")
By contrast, our hands are tied when we’re dealing with a criminal suspect.
This is the same mindset that brings known terrorists to New York City for civilian trials. It’s the same mindset that says we must close Gitmo and put these terrorists in federal prisons.
It’s the same mindset that this nation had the day before 9/11. It’s a mindset that refuses to accept that we are at war, that the Bill of Rights is a unique set of protections intended for American citizens in our own country, and that our president must use every power granted to him under Article II of the Constitution to defeat our wartime enemies and protect this nation.
Instead, the words that we’ve heard from our president and his team over recent days—words confirmed by actions—tell us that this president refuses to confront the seriousness of the dangers we face.
The president’s job is to use every tool he has to protect us. We are being ill-served by our commander-in-chief."
By Ken Klukowski, a fellow and senior legal analyst at the American Civil Rights Union. He is a frequent contributor to the Fox Forum.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2010/01/05/ken-klukowski-obama-christmas-terror-attack/
--------------
Shocked right? This is the "let's put guns in the rifles" mentality that is destroying us. The idea that if we do nothing we'll be left alone and appease the creeps trying to kill people for no reason. I really think some people don't GET that we got attacked originally for the following reasons "SUPPORTING ISRAEL" and probably women walking around without head coverings and showing leg on TV, etc.
The blame America and Apologizer in Chief gig is so pointless. Here are your options for ending being attacked: abandon Israel to the Middle-East mad house, pull every single troop from every other country and build a HUGE wall (and coast to coast missle shield maybe) around our entire nation, and then prevent anyone else from being allowed in. Bam, attacks over. Oh, and for good measure, go on TV some more and apologize for slavery (again), Christianity, small pox blankets given to the "Native Americans" (which is a lie, btw), freedom, voting, democracy, and even THINKING we should do anything to help anyone else.
And here's the other way: KILL THEM. Thanks GWB for doing the harder and more effective option of these two. Obama....not mad, just SOO disappointed in you.
"President Obama’s team has scared the nation over the past week with pronouncements so crazy they leave you breathless. But worse still are the decisions they’ve made, decisions that show America is in danger, and that those charged with protecting us are failing to treat this life-and-death struggle as the war that it really is.
------- First, after a terrorist attack was thwarted only by a detonation malfunction and brave airline passengers, a blissfully-clueless Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano told an incredulous nation that our “system worked.” That comment was so absurd that no further comment is necessary. She should have been forced to resign within hours.
...
------------- But the worst words came from the president himself. First is “allegedly.” President Obama said that Nigerian Islamic terrorist Umar Farouk Abdulmutallab “allegedly” tried to blow up an American airliner to kill hundreds of Americans You use the word “allegedly” if you’re in the media or if you’re prosecuting a criminal, not referring to undeniable acts of war.
The second is that Obama labeled this terrorist act an “isolated extremist.” We know that: (1) he’s affiliated with Al Qaeda, (2) he had help getting onto the plane, (3) he carried military-style high explosives that were likely prepared for him by experts, and (4) was in contact with the same radical Muslim imam who encouraged the Fort Hood terrorist. There are also reports that there may have been an accomplice on the plane. To call him an “isolated extremist” in the face of such facts willfully ignores the obvious truth that this was a coordinated terrorist attack.
And third is the longstanding criticism that Obama does not allow his administration describe what we are involved in the "War on Terror." They speak of "wars" in Iraq and Afghanistan—usually with a gratuitous slap at George Bush or Dick Cheney—but not the fact that America is in a global war with Islamic jihadists.
What do these words tell us about President Obama? We need only consider his actions, which are perfectly consistent with his words.
He’s ordered the Christmas bomber to be treated as a criminal defendant in our domestic law enforcement system. That means he’s presumed innocent and protected by every provision in the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth and Eighth Amendments in the Bill of Rights, including all the Federal Rules of Evidence and Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure.
One of those rights is the right to legal counsel. As a lawyer, if I were the court-appointed attorney for Abdulmutallab, the first thing I would tell him, “You have the right to remain silent. So shut up. Don’t tell anyone anything, except me. We’ll let the Feds know that you have things you could share, and that they’ll have to offer you a pretty sweet deal if they want to get a peep out of you.”
We should all feel for Deputy National Security Advisor John Brennan, who had to go on the Sunday morning talk shows and suggest that somehow this decision to put the bomber in the civilian system was for our nation’s benefit. -- America gets nothing out of that deal. There’s no trade-off. There’s no advantage.
Everything we can do in a law enforcement setting, such as using the FBI for investigation and interrogation, can also be done with someone held by our military for acts of war. We can use every tool of national power when acting against our wartime enemies.
Since he wasn’t wearing a uniform, Abdulmutallab is not even covered by the Geneva Conventions or entitled to prisoner-of-war status. Obama could simply have him executed without a public hearing as a foreign saboteur, the way Democratic President FDR did to Germans we captured on U.S. soil in 1942. (A decision which was upheld after-the-fact by the Supreme Curt in "Ex parte Quirin.")
By contrast, our hands are tied when we’re dealing with a criminal suspect.
This is the same mindset that brings known terrorists to New York City for civilian trials. It’s the same mindset that says we must close Gitmo and put these terrorists in federal prisons.
It’s the same mindset that this nation had the day before 9/11. It’s a mindset that refuses to accept that we are at war, that the Bill of Rights is a unique set of protections intended for American citizens in our own country, and that our president must use every power granted to him under Article II of the Constitution to defeat our wartime enemies and protect this nation.
Instead, the words that we’ve heard from our president and his team over recent days—words confirmed by actions—tell us that this president refuses to confront the seriousness of the dangers we face.
The president’s job is to use every tool he has to protect us. We are being ill-served by our commander-in-chief."
By Ken Klukowski, a fellow and senior legal analyst at the American Civil Rights Union. He is a frequent contributor to the Fox Forum.
http://www.foxnews.com/opi
--------------
Shocked right? This is the "let's put guns in the rifles" mentality that is destroying us. The idea that if we do nothing we'll be left alone and appease the creeps trying to kill people for no reason. I really think some people don't GET that we got attacked originally for the following reasons "SUPPORTING ISRAEL" and probably women walking around without head coverings and showing leg on TV, etc.
The blame America and Apologizer in Chief gig is so pointless. Here are your options for ending being attacked: abandon Israel to the Middle-East mad house, pull every single troop from every other country and build a HUGE wall (and coast to coast missle shield maybe) around our entire nation, and then prevent anyone else from being allowed in. Bam, attacks over. Oh, and for good measure, go on TV some more and apologize for slavery (again), Christianity, small pox blankets given to the "Native Americans" (which is a lie, btw), freedom, voting, democracy, and even THINKING we should do anything to help anyone else.
And here's the other way: KILL THEM. Thanks GWB for doing the harder and more effective option of these two. Obama....not mad, just SOO disappointed in you.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)