Sunday, June 20, 2010

Lifting The Veil: America Finally Meets Barack Obama

To those of us who are in full control of our mental capacities, this was a no brainer. We warned them, didn't we? But, late as it is, the America that elected Barack "Hope-n-Change" Obama to the presidency without knowing not a fleeting fact about him is finally awakening to a very dire fact: the Barry they created in their heads does not exist.

Exhibit A comes from one of my favorite websites, RealClearPolitics. Obama's average approval rating fell below the 50% threshold months ago, but has always been at least a couple of points above his disapproval rating. But now, for the first time in his presidency, Mr. O's average approval number is now tied with his disapproval rating at 47.9%. It's all down hill from here, ladies and gentlemen. My favorite pollster, Scott Rasmussen has his disapproval number at 57%!

Exhibit B comes in the form of the latest Gallup poll showing that 51% do not want Barry to be reelected. Poor, Barry.

So why has the public soured so badly on the president. The simple answer is that everything I said would happen has happened. He has betrayed the public trust with incalculable lies and a budget deficit larger than the budgets of small nations. He managed to do most of this with the passage of a single bill we all call "Obamacare". To uncover the lies told to get that 2,000 page clusterfark through Congress, we turn to the Pittsburgh Tribune Review in a piece titled "ObamaCare: The Ruse Exposed":
Enacting a law is one thing; implementing it is another. And early indications about ObamaCare's implementation via new regulations suggest this law will validate its critics' dire predictions.

The president repeatedly promised Americans that they'd be able to keep their existing health coverage under ObamaCare. Yet an early regulatory draft -- of his administration's own making -- predicts that in just three years, changes that employers will have to make will put 51 percent of workers into plans subject to new federal requirements.

Those changes will raise -- not rein in -- costs. And employers will have to keep modifications to deductibles, co-payments and benefits within a narrow range -- defined by unelected bureaucrats -- or lose their "grandfathered" plans' exemptions from those otherwise mandatory changes.
We already discussed his lies about the federal insurance mandate not being a tax a few days ago. Heck, we even had video to prove that one. The genius is not only terrible at leadership but he totally sucks at lying, too.

Beyond healthcare, Americans have watched for over 60 days now as oil spews into the Gulf of Mexico with absolutely zero direction coming from the White House. In his now infamous "Awful Office Address" a few days ago, Barry promised to address this problem the way he has addressed every single other problem he has faced in his presidency. He appointed a "czar" and formed a commission. And apprently, its not a very good commission either. Click the link to read about what a travesty this thing is.

Of course, we should have seen that coming, too, I suppose. His commissions' track records are spectacularly awful. The commission that Mr. Obama appointed to come up with a solution to our expanding budget deficit has...are you ready...this is really gonna throw you for a out of money!!!! That's right. The commission appointed by our fearless leader to propose solutions to lower the deficit is now running its own deficit. Who knew you couldn't spell "irony" without O-B-A-M-A?

It comes down to one word. Incompetence. Period.

I've said it once, twice, a million times and I'll say it again. Just elect conservatives and everything will be ok. I promise.

Friday, June 18, 2010

You Lie! Episode 19,435

First of all, an admission on my part. I do not, in point of fact, know that this is actually Barry O's 19,435th lie. In all fairness, the number is probably much, much higher than that. But I mean, c'mon, I can't be expected to document every lie he tells at a time when he's averaging 5-8 per day. I'm only one man!

Anyway, h/t to Hot Air for moving this to the forefront. It appears that the Obama Administration is preparing a defense against the various states suing the feds over Obamacare that flies directly in the face of a promise our fearless leader made during his push for nationalized medicine. During the campaign to turn American into Europe, Barry made a big spectacle of himself on national television promising that the individual mandate (the part of Obamacare that forces everyone to buy health insurance) is not a de facto tax. But, as with all of his promises, this one, too, has an expiration date.

First, the evidence. Here's Barry on ABC with George Stephanopolous insisting that the mandate does not equal a tax:
OBAMA: No. That’s not true, George. The — for us to say that you’ve got to take a responsibility to get health insurance is absolutely not a tax increase. What it’s saying is, is that we’re not going to have other people carrying your burdens for you anymore than the fact that right now everybody in America, just about, has to get auto insurance. Nobody considers that a tax increase.
People say to themselves, that is a fair way to make sure that if you hit my car, that I’m not covering all the costs.

STEPHANOPOULOS: But it may be fair, it may be good public policy…

OBAMA: No, but — but, George, you — you can’t just make up that language and decide that that’s called a tax increase. Any…


OBAMA: What — what — if I — if I say that right now your premiums are going to be going up by 5 or 8 or 10 percent next year and you say well, that’s not a tax increase; but, on the other hand, if I say that I don’t want to have to pay for you not carrying coverage even after I give you tax credits that make it affordable, then…

STEPHANOPOULOS: I — I don’t think I’m making it up. Merriam Webster’s Dictionary: Tax — “a charge, usually of money, imposed by authority on persons or property for public purposes.”

OBAMA: George, the fact that you looked up Merriam’s Dictionary, the definition of tax increase, indicates to me that you’re stretching a little bit right now. Otherwise, you wouldn’t have gone to the dictionary to check on the definition.
So, there's Mr. O arguing with former Clinton staffer George Stephanopolous about rather or not the mandate equals a tax increase. Obviously, Mr. O says, "No, absolutely not a tax increase." So, what has changed since that interview took place? Obamacare is not the law of the land, so now he doesn't have to lie about it anymore. American Spectator has the story in a piece titled Obama Admin. Argues In Court That Individual Mandate Is A Tax:
Late last night, the Obama Department of Justice filed a motion to dismiss the Florida-based lawsuit against the health care law, arguing that the court lacks jurisdiction and that the State of Florida and fellow plaintiffs haven't presented a claim for which the court can grant relief. To bolster its case, the DOJ cited the Anti-Injunction Act, which restricts courts from interfering with the government's ability to collect taxes.

The Act, according to a DOJ memo supporting the motion to dismiss, says that "no suit for the purpose of restraining the assessment or collection of any tax shall be maintained in any court by any person, whether or not such person is the person against whom such tax was assessed." The memo goes on to say that it makes no difference whether the disputed payment it is called a "tax" or "penalty," because either way, it's "assessed and collected in the same manner" by the Internal Revenue Service.
So basically since he can't win a straight up constitutional challenge to Obamacare, he will now call the mandate a "tax" in order to get around it. This is the pennacle of arrogance, ladies and gentleman. He should be impeached or impaled. You decide.

Wednesday, June 16, 2010


Not long after the healthcare bill passed the Senate and was signed into law by our fearless leader, Barry O, I was told the true story of a woman's disenchantment with Mr. Obama. Her sentiments seem to me to be a problem with no solution. Let me explain.

The afore mentioned woman is black, voted for Obama, but has found herself completely outraged (outraged!) that Mr. O could do something like nationalize the healthcare industry. You see, this woman works in a very particular sect of the insurance industry which stands to be shoved out of existence by ObamaCare if it actually gets carried out in its entirety. I found her disenchantment difficult to understand. Indeed, Barry had made a nationalized healthcare system a cornerstone of his campaign. Had this hapless woman simply not believed him?

No, she just wasn't listening. And it's high time people like her were called out on it. The time for subtlety with these people is over. They blindly voted for someone because he was handsome (gag me), eloquent and "fresh" (whatever the hell that means) and black. She can be proud to know she was part of a group of millions of Americans duped into voting for someone based on nothing short of a gut feeling and now the country is paying for their gross negligence, willful ignorance and racial bloc voting. She wanted to be a part of history, damn the consequences.

And that's about what it boils down to. Accountability. I was listening to some talking heads on one of the cable news channels. They were having a round table discussion on who should be held acccountable in the government for the oil spill disaster and the government's poor response. Not one of them had the correct answer. Because if you're a conservative like me, and you believe that ours is a government "of the people, by the people and for the people" then it's quite simple to determine who is responsible. Who put this man into office? Who, despite all of our most dire warnings about his inexperience and opportunism (to say nothing of his God complex), decided they would cast caution to the wind and vote for him anyway? It is a group comprised of people like the woman mentioned above.

They deserve our scorn and nastiness. They deserve to be cursed in public. They deserve to be reminded everyday until this national nightmare is over that they are responsible for the dismantling of our values and culture. I would love to be able to tell you that I think we should rise above that and take the moral high road. But I can say beyond doubt that when it comes to policy and preserving our most cherished values as Americans, I honestly have no use for these people.

Do you?

EDIT: This post has been edited from it's original publication, however no substantive changes have been made.

Tuesday, June 15, 2010

George Bush, Barack Obama and an Oil Spill walk into a bar...

It's come to this folks. After 57 (or is it 58? 59? Who's keeping count anymore) days of oil spewing relentlessly into the Gulf of Mexico with absolutely no leadership from the White House, the people of Louisiana in a recent poll have declared they are much happier with the way Bush handled Katrina than the way Obama is handling the oil spill.

The PPP poll released today spells trouble for a president already knee-deep in an oil-filled ocean of incompetence. If you thought the hundreds of millions of barrels of oil that will end up in the Gulf is bad, take a look at this absolutely unmitigated disaster:
Our new Louisiana poll has a lot of data points to show how unhappy voters in the state are with Barack Obama's handling of the oil spill but one perhaps sums it up better than anything else- a majority of voters there think George W. Bush did a better job with Katrina than Obama's done dealing with the spill.

50% of voters in the state, even including 31% of Democrats, give Bush higher marks on that question compared to 35% who pick Obama.

Overall only 32% of Louisianans approve of how Obama has handled the spill to 62% who disapprove. 34% of those polled say they approved of how Bush dealt with Katrina to 58% who disapproved.
Straining to hit their stride and assert control over this situation, Mr. Obama did what he always does. He gave a speech. But not just any speech. This speech was so useless even the White House press room (aka, MSNBC) wasn't buying it. Seriously, folks, this stuff is too good to make up. When even Chris "I've Got a Tingle Up My Leg" Matthews is saying you have "no sense of executive command" then you've really gone beyond the realm of mere incompetence. I mean, c'mon, it's Chris Matthews we're talking about here.

Anyway, for an example of real leadership look no further than Louisiana's conservative, Republican governor, Bobby Jindal. The same poll has his approval rating at 63% (65% on his handling of the spill itself). We can probably expect that number to climb now that the good Governor has decided to stop waiting on Barry and actually take matters into his own hands, ordering the Louisiana National Guard to begin building barrier islands to protect the state's coastline. Because, seriously, you can only holler for help for so long before your state's new motto becomes "Just do it."

This, the healthcare debacle and his absolutely clueless foreign policy will not be forgotten by history. Barack Hussein Obama will be regarded as one of our nations worst and most ineffective presidents. Ever. I hate to say "I told you so" but...

Thursday, February 11, 2010

Debra Medina, 9/11 Truther

Let the audio speak for itself.

Debra Medina, SHAME ON YOU! This, quite frankly, is disgraceful. At the beginning of this audio clip she claims to be a "regular, everyday person." Ms. Medina, regular everyday Texans do not believe that the government was behind 9/11 and they would not pussyfoot around the question like some leftwing candyass, spewing forth the most useless trifle about "mind control" and the "thought police". Well, lemme tell you, Debra, you campaign is now about "damage control" because you just ended your political career.

I am embarassed to have ever said a kind thing about you; I am ashamed to share citizenship with you in this most proud of states and I am insulted that you presume to be Texan enough to be my governor. You are truly a disgrace to this state.

You are a laughing stock nation wide. Glenn Beck was right, that answer is definitely the fastest way back to 4%. And back to 4% you go. For shame, madame. For shame.

Tuesday, February 9, 2010

Governor Debra Medina?

With polls showing a huge surge in support for tea partier, businesswoman and Republican candidate for Texas governor Debra Medina, I get the feeling that she may be the next Scott Brown to sweep the political landscape. Not because she could very well be voted into office to fill a seat long-held by Democrats; the Texas governor's mansion has been solidly Republican for over 15 years. No, Ms. Medina will be the next Scott Brown because, like the new Massachusetts senator, she represents a huge political shift in this country made up of wave after wave of disillusioned voters looking for someone fresh. While officially running as a Republican, no one mistakes her candidacy for anything other than what it actually is. Debra Medina is a Tea Party candidate. Like Daddy always said, "If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck..."

Beginning her campaign with as little as 3% support in the polls, Ms. Medina now enjoys 24% support among Republican primary voters after two hugely successful debate performances. Doesn't sound like much to you? Consider that Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, a hugely popular U.S. senator only garners 4 points more at 28% (and for that matter Governor Perry only garners 39% in the same poll) and you have the makings of a political bombshell levied by upset Texas voters. And it won't take much to shake the boat. If no candidate earns 50% of the vote in next month's primary then the election goes to a run-off to be held in April. If one of those candidates is a Tea Party candidate then the nation's waves of grassroots Tea Party activists just might see their opportunity to have their first viable Tea Party candidate for a major office.

But unlike the huge wake up call that Scott Brown was to Democrats, Debra Medina could be a huge wake up call to elected Republicans across the country that they aren't safe, either, no matter who they are. Governor Perry, after being reelected with barely 40% of the vote four years ago, has become an immensely popular governor and a forceful voice against the intrusion of the national government into our state affairs. He is also largely responsible for the economic behemoth that Texas has become over the last three years. After all, that's why I support him in this election. If Debra Medina is able to unseat this governor, then Republicans across the country are vulnerable to a huge Tea Party insurgency that could alter the future of the party and indeed the nation. If she wins the governor's mansion, well, then God save Texas.

Don't think it's possible? She's already beating the leading Democrat candidate, former Houston Mayor Bill White by 4 points.

Wednesday, February 3, 2010

Perry Holds Commanding Lead in Texas GOP Primary and General Election

According to the latest Rasmussen Reports poll, Governor Rick Perry holds a commanding lead over Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison, a good senator who became a bit overambitious and decided to challenge an immensely popular and successful governor. Frankly, it makes you question her intellect. But I digress.

According to the poll, 74% of Texas GOP voters approve of the job Mr. Perry is doing (and 80% have a favorable opinion of him, personally), and that has translated into a huge lead for the governor. Perry leads Hutchison and Medina, the vote tallying up 44% to 29% to 14%, respectively. This is really devestating for the Hutchison campaign, Perry's only real threat. After leading the Governor by 20 points early last year, Hutchison now finds herself trailing Perry by 15 points. Ouch.

But let's be honest. The real winner in this poll is Debra Medina, who has seen her poll numbers jump from just 4% when she began her campaign, to 14% now. She needs to run for Congress, and I sincerely urge her to do so.

The big loser in Rasmussen's polling is former Houston mayor, Democrat Bill White. In general election matchups he currently trails Perry, Hutchison - and Medina! Now that's amazing. The GOP's weakest contender for the gubernatorial nomination is beating the Democrats' strongest contender for their nomination. White's 6 point lead over Medina just one month ago has now slid to a 3 point deficit, with Medina leading White 41 to 38 percent. The message: The Texas governor's mansion is off limits to Democrats.

And, frankly, that's the most important thing of all, isn't it? ;)

Tuesday, February 2, 2010

Candadian Provincial Premier To Seek Medical Care In The United States

h/t Hot Air

Apparently the socialized healthcare system of our neighbor to the north isn't quite good enough for one of Canada's more prominent politicians.

Back in August, our friend Ed Morrissey reported on a program initiated by the Canadian government that made it legal for border provinces such as Ontario to contract with American hospitals to treat Canadian patients who need various treatments not readily available in Canada due to the increased demand that a nationalized healthcare system creates. The sole reason for the program is get around increased wait times for care, something the Democrats assure us exist only in the imaginations of eeeevil conservatives trying to scare people away from socialized medicine.

But now it appears that even Canada's politicians have no faith in the system they thrusted down the throats of their citizens. At least that's true for the Provincial Premier of Newfoundland and Labrador, one Mr. Danny Williams. Now, with his own life on the line, Mr. Williams is coming to America for heart surgery.

If you're not quite ready to call him a hypocrite, here's a video of him defending Canada's healthcare program.

Here is the simple truth of the matter: By seeking healthcare outside of Canada to save his own life, Premier Danny Williams has issued a de facto admission that the nationalized healthcare system is a virtual death sentence to those needing life saving treatment or surgery, treatments and surgeries made scarce by the very system he helped put in place.

Danny Williams, repeat after me: What's good for the goose is good for the gander.

Member of British "Iraq War Panel" Accidentally Admits Legitimacy of Iraq War

While those of us in America have largely shifted our focus away from Iraq and onto Afghanistan in the wake of the recent surge there, the liberal establishment in Britain (often referred to as "the British") are holding hearings to review the "facts" and "circumstances" surrounding the lead up to the Iraq War. This, one would venture a guess, is to find some sort of reason to for liberals to say, "AHA! We knew this entire thing was a sham," and as Al Gore said, "You liiiiieeed to the American people! You liiiiied to us!"

Well, it turns out that in the wake of a free Iraq a lot of information becomes available that isn't so convenient to liberals who are adament that "Bush lied, kids died!" No, instead the truth is coming to light through the work of the Iraq Survey Group, the group sent into Iraq by the U.S. Congress to gather as much data about the fallen regime as possible. What they have found is absolutely breath taking. You can read the report here, but I want to focus on a major slip (or ever so subtle admission) by one of the British panel members while interrogating former Prime Minister Tony Blair.

ABC News, as well as others, are calling it his judgement day, as if the fate of his soul is on the....oh, who am I kidding, liberals don't believe in souls. That's just silly. Needless to say, Tony handled himself brilliantly, even while being called a liar and a murderer. For instance, when discussing the opposition by many nations in Europe to the war, Blair responds:
In fact, I don't think they were really disputing that Iraq was in breach of (U.N. Resolution) 1441; then we were going to be faced with a choice I never wanted to be faced with; did you go then without a second resolution? My view very strongly was if he is in breach of 1441 then we should mean what we've said. It was a final opportunity to comply and he wasn't complying.
What a novel concept. We should mean what we've said. Unfortunately, the only thing liberals are interested in doing is talking. A point made accidentally by panel member, Sir Lawrence Freedman:
Blair: It is absolutely clear from the Iraq Study Group, and indeed the Butler Report deals with this, that he was concealing material he should have delivered up to the U.N. and retained intent, not merely in theory, but he was taking acation on, for example, "dual use" facilities that were specifically in violation of United Nations Resolutions.

Sir Lawrence: I'm not actually disagreeing that there were significant elements of material breach in Saddam's behavior. This is really as much about the diplomacy...
Bingo! And the fact is that no one has ever made a serious argument that Saddam Hussein was not in material breach of U.N. Resolutions, including Resolution 1441, which gave him his final chance to comply with the will of the world. It has always been, as Sir Lawrence admits, about "diplomacy" which used in this context is just a liberal word for endless talking, back pedaling and concessions to murderous dictators.

Tony Blair, liberal though his domestic politics may be, is a first rate statesman who, along with President Bush, made tough decisions when they were needed. It would seem now that history has finally vindicated their decision.

Friday, January 29, 2010

Amateur Hour at the WH

Comes news today our President is backing away from his plan to try al Qaeda terrorist Khalid Shaikh Mohammed in New York City. Apparently, quite a few people in NYC found the prospect of increased terrorist attacks surrounding this unnecessary show trial to be somewhat of a non-starter. Fair enough.

But if you move the trial away from NYC, you have to move it to somewhere else. Something tells me that the folks in Tulsa, Fargo, DC, Portland or whatever city they park the DoJ U-Haul won't be a great deal more excited about this venture. What kind of a message does that send? We're going to protect New Yorkers from another terrorist attack by putting your little city at risk. Thanks, we knew you'd understand!

Did they think this through?

This whole scenario is starting to get pretty ridiculous. Previously the White House went out of it's way to say that KSM would not be released if he was acquitted. Am I missing something? If we're going to keep him in prison for life regardless of the outcome of the trial, then is there any point?

The ultimate problem really isn't that we'll have to deal with this kangaroo court. The problem is that it appears we might as well have a kangaroo in the Oval Office, for all the thought they put into this stuff.

ICYMI: The Republican Response

In case you didn't stay tuned in to catch the GOP response to the State of the Union, here it is. It is given by the newly sworn in governor of Virginia, Bob McDonnell. It totally knocked the socks off of Obama's speech. Don't worry, its little more than 10 minutes long.

Thursday, January 28, 2010

State Of The Union 2010

Let's see, where does one start when disecting the grab bag of half-truths, empty promises and outright lies in last night's State of the Union address? The entire speech is what marines call a "target rich environment". I'll just talk about a few here tonight, but I think you all should watch the video posted at the end of this entry. It's long, but essential.

First and foremost, this "spending freeze" proposed by the President is a J-O-K-E, JOKE! Let's crunch the numbers here: To start off with, the president has placed Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid and all national security priorities off limits. In other words, just about 85% of the federal budget is off the table and will not be affected by this so-called "freeze". Problem number two: the "freeze" on funding for agencies such as the Environmental Protection Agency (one of the most useless agencies ever created by any government anywhere, ever. Like, totally ever) lasts only three years, this following a year in which the EPA saw it's funding vastly increased by our new "fiscally responsible" president. Problem number three: These spending freezes are strictly that - a freeze. No actual cuts will be allowed under this freeze because its, well, frozen. That is not fiscal responsibility, it's more of the same wasteful spending that got us into this mess in the first place.

President Obama also promised in his speech to continue pursuing his disasterous healthcare reform bills, promising to take into account any advice or solutions offered by anyone. Nevermind that conservatives and Republicans have offered numerous suggestions, not the least of which is to break down state barriers and allow consumers to shop for health insurance across state lines, thus opening the market and forcing the nation's 13,000 insurance companies to actually compete for our business. This would have an enormous impact on our premiums, to say nothing of the effect simple tort reform would have on our healthcare system. By insisting on continuing down the path of socialism, and not "pivoting" to the center as many pundits assumed he would, President Obama has proven once and for all his true vision for America; one in which individuals are virtually helpless without the government.

Listening to the speech, one would think Americans are a helpless people, with no hope except that which is given to us by our benevolent leader in the White House. But what the Messiah giveth, he can taketh away, and he did just that by simultaneously lampooning Washington (of which has been a part for over 3 years now) for it's incompetence and in the same breath insisting that we "trust" him. Whatev.

Between whining about the "tone in Washington" and lecturing the Supreme Court on how to do it's job, the rest of the speech was basically a hate-fest over the unnamed president from whom Barry supposedly "inherited" this whole mess. Let's take the deficit as an example, which the president still blames on President Bush. Ed Morrissey, take it away:
Obama repeatedly insisted that he inherited massive budgetary problems from George Bush, but the Con Law professor may want to retake his high-school civics class. Congress passes budgets, not the President, and the last three budgets came from Democrats. In three years, they increased annual federal spending by $900 billion, while the admittedly profligate and irresponsible Republican Congresses under George Bush increased annual federal spending by $800 billion — in six years. And during the last three years before taking office as President, Obama served in the Senate that passed those bills, and he voted for every Democratic budget put in front of him.
Dammit, ain't the truth refreshing?

Lastly on my very, very short list of complaints (for the long list buy my Barack Obama biography, entitled "Bend Over, America", now available in paperback!) let us turn to an issue I care very much about. Last night President Obama promised to finally work with Congress to repeal the Don't Ask, Don't Tell policy barring homosexuals from serving openly in our armed forces. So much as I would like to praise the president for this step towards equality, the fact remains that the President is as two faced as ever in regards to this issue. He did no more last night than state the same policy position he has stated throughout his campaign for president. The fact of the matter is that, so far, the only action Barack Obama has taken in regards to Don't Ask, Don't Tell has been to direct his Justice Department to vigorously defend it in the only standing lawsuit against the policy. And what organization is the only plaintiff in the only case to repeal Don't Ask, Don't Tell? Why, it's the Log Cabin Republicans, America's largest organization of gay Republicans!

Seriously, Barry, when a big group of queers is kicking your ass on any issue dealing in military matters perhaps it's time to go back to Chicago.

Tuesday, January 26, 2010

The Adventures of TOTUS

As has been well reported by now, Mr. Obama is heavily dependent on the aptly nicknamed TOTUS (Teleprompter Of The United States). Much as been said over the last year of the president's "safety net", but we can now say beyond doubt that the president everyone hailed as giving the most eloquent speechess since Pericles' funeral oration is totally and completely incapable of giving any public speech without his beloved TOTUS. Are you ready for this? Barack Obama has been caught giving a Teleprompter aided a sixth grade class.

That really happened.

In case you're still not convinced that the president is unable to speak without a visual aide, here he is giving a speech to about a dozen people in his "middle class task force"...with a teleprompter.

The Onion News Service has a hillarious funny spoof on his dependence on his glass aide, too:

It's not so much that this is a devestating blow to Mr. Obama. But the fact is that his fabled eloquence is as fake and phony as the hope and change he promised us; as non-existent as the transparency and honesty we were assured.

Exit question: What's more disturbing? The fact that Obama says such assinine and stupid things, or that all of these things are prepared far ahead of time by a team of political and policy advisers?

Will The Real Ellie Light Please Stand Up

As Glenn Beck reported today, it appears that Barack Obama's popularity has fallen so terribly that he has only one supporter remaining who is willing to speak up for him within America's op-ed pages. Her name is Ellie Light from Philadelphia, PA. No wait, I'm sorry she's from Daly City, CA. Um, I mean she's from Bangor, Maine.

Well, to tell ya truth no one really knows where Ellie Light is from, or if she even exists because editorials supporting Barack Obama have appeared in literally dozens of newspapers across the country and all written by her, each time claiming to hail from that city. So far, editorials by "Ellie Light" have appeared at Politico; the the Philadelphia Daily News; the San Francisco Examiner; the Washington Times; USA Today; and literally dozens of smaller local papers from across the country. Hot Air is on it, as well:
Ms. Light always claims to be a local in these letters. Her real estate holdings are apparently prodigious, as she has claimed residences in Philadelphia, PA; Daly City, California; Mansfield, Ohio; Waynesboro, Virginia; Algoma, Wisconsin; Bangor, Maine; and dozens of other places. Who said Obama supporters were all downtrodden?
Our friends over at Patterico's Pontification's are keeping a running count of how many of Ellie's editorials they can find nationwide. So far: 47 editorials in at least 23 different states. No joke.

But, alas, my dear Tusk Readers, I must beg my fellow conservative bloggers to please, please leave poor Ms. Ellie Light alone. Should she be an actual person (as opposed to a White House troll) then I believe we should give Mr. Obama the respect and dignity of being able to enjoy the support of his last remaining devotee for as long as it lasts.

UPDATE: Now the number is 61 papers and 31 states, as well as the District of Columbia and even two foreign publications. Sheesh.

Saturday, January 23, 2010

Charles Blow: Ask Your Doctor if Klonopin or Xanax is Right for You

I'm normally a huge fan of deliberately inflammatory polemics. The border between what's appropriate to say and write and what's not often just begs to be crossed.

However, I had to read this following sentence in today's New York Times a few times before I could fully digest it. It is the lede for a column by Charles Blow titled Mobs Rule:

"Welcome to the mob: an angry, wounded electorate, riled by recession, careening across the political spectrum, still craving change, nursing a bloodlust."

It's that last word that just threw me for a crazy loop. But I'll get back to that.

Does anyone remember November of last year? Most media professionals were just in a constant state of uninterrupted euphoria over the election results, as if someone had dropped large amounts of time-release MDMA into newsroom watercoolers across America. These people wrote incessantly about how this momentous, hopeful, exciting, historic and magnificent change was all around us. And don't get them started on the voters who did it. These humble voters were also just so wonderfully hopeful, compassionate, well-informed, thoughtful people. Each one (who voted for Obama) was just an absolute saint. Democracy had been saved!

And now, we have one special election in one state that didn't happen to go the way these journalists wished and these same voters are equated with a "mob... angry, wounded... riled... nursing a bloodlust."

Wikipedia: "Bloodlust, a desire for extreme violence and carnage, often aroused in the heat of battle and leading to uncontrolled slaughter and torture."

Seriously. Crazy. Stuff.

Thursday, January 21, 2010

Does Scott Brown's Election Mark The End of Liberalism?

We will begin with this video of Brit Hume and Bill O'Reilly discussing the Massachusetts senate race and the implications of that election's results the day before the election took place. As we all know, Scott Brown went on to win a triumphant victory. Watch the full video, particularly what Brit Hume has to say, and then hear me out on my interpretation and the reason I chose the title I did for this entry.

Two cases presented here by two men whose opinion should not be taken lightly. Essentially, they argue that Scott Brown's victory is a terrible thing for Democrats because they will be utterly destroyed this November or, as Hume posits, Brown's victory is a long-term positive for Democrats because they will be able to moderate their positions and "steal Republican ideas" to earn back the trust of the people.

Are you hearing this? The two possibilities presented by these two gentlemen are both completely possible, but they both mean essentially the same thing. Either the Democrats remain an insane assembly of assinine "progressives", becoming an inconsequential thorn in the side of Republicans or they take a sharp right turn and become...more conservative. Either way, the liberalization of the Democratic party and the far left's grip on what was once the national party is over. With the election of Barack Obama and the ascedance of ultra-liberal Congressional leaders (Reid, Pelosi, et al) the Ameican people have seen what liberalism truly is, and they don't like what they see. Or, perhaps, what they don't see.

What they do not see is the transparency promised us by this administration and this congress. They have not been shown deatils of bills that will alter forever the future of our nation. They have not seen anyone from their side of the aisle articulate clearly the almost certain risks and consequences associated with their socialist policies. But, honestly, why would the Democrats want us to see anything? They meetings and negotiations are held behind closed doors because Democrats and their liberal overlords are keenly aware of how unAmerican their ideals and principles are. They know that if the American people catch even a whiff of their crimson commie policies they will reject it.

Unfortunately for them and their cohorts the American people have seen for themelves the truth; the arrogance, corruption and the hubris of liberal power. And now we are seeing the results across the nation. In New Jersey and Virginia Republicans now sit in the governors' mansions. In Massachusetts Scott Brown has broken a Democrat stranglehold on that state. In California even Barbara Boxer now looks vulnerable. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas stands poised to lose her seat. Democrat Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will certainly lose his seat. Senators Arlen Specter and Mary Landrieu of Pennsylvania and Louisiana, respectively, are on the verge of losing their seats, as well.

This could very well mark the end of the Reid-Pelosi-Obama brand of liberalism that has plagued the Democratic party and America for last half century.

Good riddance, sayeth The Tusk.

Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Scott Brown Wins! My take on tonight's election

He did it! To wild applause and chants of "Seat him now!" senator-elect Scott Brown accepted the concession of Attorney General Martha Coakley in Massachusett's special election to fill the open senate seat held by the late Ted Kennedy.

This is truly a revolutionary moment in electoral politics when even the citizens of Massachusetts are rejecting the Obama-Reid-Pelosi agenda. Questions still surround the Democrats' willingness to seat him immediately, but my questions really surround what kind of senator Scott Brown will be. Frankly, most of us support him because of his staunch opposition to a healthcare bill loaded with special interest goodies. high taxes and passed with votes that were bought and paid for by Harry Reid and his Senate cronies. (re: Louisiana Purchase, Cornhusker Kickback) We know he also opposes giving lawyers to unlawful terrorist combatants caught on the battle field and opposes giving them civilian trials. But we also know what he has repeatedly said on the campaign trail and in his acceptance speech: that he will be an "independent" senator for "the people of Massachusetts". He even hailed Senator Kennedy, an enemy of common American values and common sense.

The people of Massachusetts either agreed with Senator Kennedy's far-left ideology or they turned a blind eye to his positions; positions which consistently weakened America and emboldened our enemies; positions that led to the slaughter of millions of unborn Americans; positions that all but longed for America's defeat around the world; positions that would make John Adams, John F. Kennedy and any red blooded American sick with grief that a man with such potential for greatness instead squandered it all to appeal to the "educated" and the "elite".

This is the man "the people of Massachusetts" continued to send to the United States Senate for more than 30 years. And those are the people that Scott Brown has now sworn to represent as a Republican. The people of Massachusetts have either made a huge ideological shift, or tonight's election is a mere blip on the radar screen and they are still the raging lunatics who kept sending a sputtering loon to Washington, D.C. for three decades.

So while I rejoice at his victory now, I am only cautiously optimistic about his addition to the Republican caucus. If "the people" of Massachusetts are the same people they have always been, then Scott Brown will be duty bound to represent them in all of their liberal lunacy. I hope that's not going to be the case.

But fear not, Tusk Readers! There is reason to be hopeful. He will never be the liberal that Ted Kennedy was, and so we are saved from a catastrophic healthcare bill and can have at least six years of (at least) moderately conservative common sense from half the Senators within the Massachusetts congressional delegation. Here is his victory speech in which he sounded more like the Lt. Colonel he is than the senator-elect from Massachusetts. Drink it up!

Monday, January 18, 2010

Scott Brown Wins! Won't He?

Since poll after poll after poll continue to show Scott Brown ahead and even way ahead in the Massachusetts senate race against Martha Coakley I figure it's OK to go ahead and call it. This is truly a game changer.

The GOP's recent wins in the New Jersey and Virginia governors' races could be explained as flukes and/or inconsequential by the Democrats a few months ago. But a loss in Massachusetts, which has not elected a Republican senator in 44 years, will be truly devestating to a Democrat party hell bent on shoving a hardcore-liberal, ideological agenda down the people's throat. And rest assured, they will shove it down your throat:
Even as Democratic leaders pondered contingencies, the House speaker, Nancy Pelosi, insisted that the legislation would move forward, though she acknowledged that Tuesday’s results could force a tactical shift.

“Certainly the dynamic will change depending on what happens in Massachusetts,” Ms. Pelosi told reporters in California on Monday. “Just the question of how we would proceed. But it doesn’t mean we won’t have a health care bill.”

“Let’s remove all doubt,” she added. “We will have health care one way or another.”
Make no mistake about it, this is not about "changing tactics", its about thwarting the will of the people when liberals can't fool them into going along with the plan. Look forward to these sort of "tactics" in the future, at least up until November, when the midterm elections will unleash a tidal wave of brand new small-government, low-tax conservative lawmakers on Capitol Hill.

Attention America: You have only one choice this November to avoid a hugely corrupt and coervice Congress; wrest control away from the Democrats by electing competent conservatives in every race on the ballot. Period.

Thursday, January 14, 2010

Why Governor Perry Was The Big Loser at Tonight's Debate...And Why I Still Support Him

First thought, Debra Medina should run for Congress, not for governor.

Second thought, I will gladly and happily support Senator Hutchison in a general election. I trust her to make the right decisions.

But here's what you really want to know. Why do I declare that the man I support for reelection, Governor Perry, lost the debate? For substance, charisma and stage presence, Governor Perry gets a big fat C-.

On far too many occassions Governor Perry looked like the smiling politician he is so good at being. He seemed agitated, arrogant at times and even downright grumpy sometimes. The governor would have served himself well by acting like the successful governor he has been. His stated answer to many of the questions asked and criticisms levied are precisely the reasons I am supporting him; in essence, "Look around." It is simply a fact that Governor Perry has received virtually nothing but accolades across the country for his leadership in making Texas one of the greatest and most desirable places to live and do business in the United States.

Ask yourself one question: Whenever you hear or read news accounts of a glimmer of hope in this nation of economic despair, what state and what governor is being interviewed or written about. Only Texas and it's chief executive are held as a model for economic recovery. Period. Here are a few examples I found in literally minutes in a simple google search.

"Texas Job Levels Should Recover First" - NBC/DFW

"Austin Among Best Performing U.S. Metros" - Austin Business Journal

Texas To Lead Recovery - Buffalo Business First

Lone Star Rebound - Christian Science Monitor

The Secrets of Texas's Success National Review Online

Blue State Blues - National Review Online

"Don't Mess With Texas Banks" - CNN Money

"Texas Ranked No. 3 State For Entrepreneurs" - SBDCNet

"Shall We All Move To Texas" - USGovInfo.About.Com

You know, it seems to me that if things are so bad here in Texas then someone forgot to send the memo to, well, the rest of the country who seems to be looking to us to lead us out of this recession because of our continuing economic strength. And when they can't wait for their own states to get it right, they vote with their feet and move here instead.

One can understand why Governor Perry said tonight, "It really wears me out that we got two people on the stage here that wanna tear Texas down when the fact is everybody understand this is the state you wanna live in. This state is growing by 1,000 people a day and its not because we're over taxin' em, over regulatin' em or over litigatin' em. They're comin' here because they know this is the place to be."

I'm getting pretty worn out over that, too, Governor. The cases made by Senator Hutchison and Ms. Medina are unbelievable unless they can explain why Texas has been held up as an economic model for the nation by virtually everyone in the nation except for, well, them and their supporters. Mr. Perry's failure was that he failed to articulate that tonight.

Onward to Election Day.

Wednesday, January 13, 2010

MA Senate Race Turns Brutal...literally

Just a few months ago Republican Scott Brown's chances at winning the special election to fill the late Senator Ted "Chappaquidick" Kennedy's seat didn't just seem slim, they were slim. In one of the most liberal states of the union his candidacy should have been a mere formality, but after basing a campaign based entirely on "being the 41st vote" to stop ObamaCare he has now closed to within one point in a race his opponent, Democrat state Attorney General Martha Coakley, once led by 30 points.

And so, naturally, the Democrats are getting nervous...really nervous, in fact. So nervous that just yesterday, AG Coakley went into Washington, D.C., to attend a fundraiser to try and help salvage her sinking campaign. And that's when it happened. Coakley operatives have resorted to battering the press when they ask too many questions.

Weekly Standard reporter John McCormack was in attendance at that D.C. fundraiser, and while attempting to ask a few questions outside of the venue, well, I'll let him tell the story:
As I walked down the street, a man who appeared to be associated with the Coakley campaign pushed me into a freestanding metal railing. I ended up on the sidewalk. I was fine. He helped me up from the ground, but kept pushing up against me, blocking my path toward Coakley down the street.

He asked if I was with the media, and I told him I work for THE WEEKLY STANDARD. When I asked him who he worked for he replied, "I work for me." He demanded to see my credentials, and even though it was a public street, I showed them to him.
Democrats reacted the way you may blaming it on Republicans. No, seriously, they did. Stop laughing. But then the video surfaced...
But documentary evidence won't stop Democrats. No, after the tape surfaced the Coakley campaigned insisted they had no idea who had pushed Mr. McCormack. And then the chief lawmaker of Massachussets, the Attorney General Madame Coakley herself, said she was not "privy" to all the facts, even going so far as to insist she is being stalked by those evil Republicans.
"I know there were people following, including two from the Brown campaign who have been very aggressive in their stalking,” Coakley told reporters during an appearance at Kit Clark Senior Services in Dorchester. “I’m not sure what happened. I know something occurred, but I’m not privy to the facts. I’m sure it will come out, but I’m not aware of that.”
But, unfortunately for Ms. Coakley, the facts always get in the way of whatever liberals say as we all learned when this photo surfaced, showing us she was a bit more "privy to the facts" than she let on. In fact, it appears she witnessed the whole attack:
To make this easy for all of you, the woman on the left is Madame Coakley. The big guy standing over Mr. McCormack is the assailant, who turns out to be..wait for it. Wait for it....working on the Coakley campaign!! Hot Air fills us in:
That would be Michael Meehan of Blue Line Strategic Communications, who has worked for John Kerry, Maria Cantwell, and was sent to Massachusetts by the DSCC to handle “messaging” for Coakley.

You know, a state Attorney General should be the person to enforce the law — especially, as this photo shows, she witnessed the assault and battery …
Now, after lying, denying and trying to portray themselves as the victims in all of this, Mr. Meehan has finally issued an apology. Now the Democrats are doing what they do best when they are caught being ruthless brutes; pontificating about how we should "move on" and just "focus on the issues".

How about this for an issue: The attorney general of Massachussets and candidate for the U.S. Senate witnessed what is probably a prosecutable crime perpetrated by one of her henchman and lied about her knowledge of the crime, making her a criminal, too. Tsk, tsk, madame Attorney General.

Monday, January 11, 2010

Gays To Democrats: Kiss Our Collective Ass

Uh-oh. Once the Democratic party has lost it's queers, then the negros are probably next. Am I right, Harry, or am I right? ;-)

That's right, Tusk readers, it appears mo's across the country have finally figured out what conservative gays like myself have known all along...the Democrat party doesn't give a drag queen's boa about ending Don't Ask Don't Tell, repealing DOMA or expanding equality across the board in any way for homosexuals. It's all published in the newest issue of The Advocate, the nation's leading GLBT publication and one of my favorite magazines. You can read the whole story here, but only The Tusk will tell you why you can't trust a liberal activist, even when they are beginning to see the light. Though encouraging, the story does little to shine the light on Democrat ineffectiveness and complete disregard in respect to gay rights.

Now, in 2010 after decades of blind adherence to a liberal ideology and undying loyalty to a terribly inept political party, gay rights activists are finally starting to notice all of the anti-gay measures signed into law by Democrats, namely Don't Ask, Don't Tell (DADT) and the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA).

On page two the author, James Kirchick, tells of a fond time in the late 1970'2 when gays around the country rallied to defeat the Briggs Initiative, a California proposition that would have made it illegal for homosexuals to teach in public schools. What Kirchick fails to mention is that it was the staunch opposition of the state's Republican governor that virtually single-handedly defeated the measure. That governor was Ronald Reagan, himself. Log Cabin Republicans tells us how it was. Eat your heart out, Perez:
In California, Republican State Senator John Briggs, who had ambitions to be governor, proposed a statewide ballot initiative to prevent gay and lesbian people from teaching in public schools. The so-called Briggs Initiative also permitted the firing of any educator who was determined to be "advocating, imposing, encouraging or promoting" homosexuality.

One poll showed support for the Briggs Initiative leading 61% to 31%. That's when gay conservatives turned to former governor Ronald Reagan. At the time he was preparing to mount a campaign for the Republican presidential nomination in 1980. His advisors all thought he was committing political suicide when he decided to be an outspoken foe of the Briggs Initiative.

Reagan's forceful opposition helped defeat the Briggs Initiative. In November 1978, voters rejected the Briggs Initiative by more than a million votes. Even in conservative Orange County, Briggs' home base, the initiative lost. Long-time Democratic gay activist David Mixner met with Reagan in 1978 to personally lobby him on the Briggs initiative, recalling, "Never have I been treated more graciously by a human being. He turned opinion around and saved that election for us," Mixner said. "We would have been in deep trouble. He just thought it was wrong and came out against it."
Wait a minute...David Mixner...why, I think I have heard that name before. Well, yes! Yes, I have! Mr. Kirchick talks about him quite a bit in his piece for The Advocate. In fact, Mr. Mixner is leading a boycott of the DNC by many homosexuals. Sayeth Kirchick of the famed Mixner:
Mixner and company remain defiant—whatever the consequences. “The goal is freedom,” he says, “And we have to go get it. They’re not going to give it to us. Instead of pumping money into the Democratic Party right now, we should be pumping money into our struggle for civil rights. Lobbying Washington. Challenging state ballot initiatives. Engaging in civil disobedience….
Apparently, Mixner never learned that he could get a lot further by dealing with sensible conservative like Reagan instead of ridiculously shallow Democrats like Clinton and Obama.

At least gays are learning. I nearly laughed out loud when I read the following paragraph, where Kirchick discovers the magic trick behind winning conservative lobbies: Don't put all your eggs in one basket:
But this view holds only if one considers gay rights to be a “liberal” issue. And that is where the gay rights movement may be making a major strategic mistake. It’s widely acknowledged that two of the most successful lobbies in Washington are the National Rifle Association, which advocates for the loosening of gun laws, and the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, which encourages a strong relationship between the United States and Israel. These organizations have members across the country and are feared and respected on Capitol Hill for the sway they have over Congress.

The most salient feature of both the NRA and AIPAC is that they are bipartisan lobbies...Advocates of gun rights and Israel have been successful in persuading appreciable numbers of Democrats and Republicans that their causes are in the national interest and that by supporting them, politicians will help ensure, not jeopardize, their electoral success. After many years of relentless campaigning, the NRA has, for the most part, been successful in keeping Congress from legislating on guns. And AIPAC can rely on the signatures of most congressmen whenever a resolution is introduced that expresses support for Israel.
You mean if a special interest group wants to achieve it's goals it would be wise to reach out to both parties? Ooooh now I get it. One gets the feeling that Mr. Kirchick wants a medal for this stunning display of "No shit, Sherlock" logic. Truly, Mr. Kirchick, what a glittering jewel of investigative prowess you are to have discovered such a truly effective way of lobbying Congress...and all just one step behind everyone else! Kudos!

For years I have said that homosexuals risk falling into the same trap that the African-American community has fallen into by voting predictably and overwhelmingly Democratic for so long. At least it finally appears the queers are waking up to the sham that the Democratic party is, and has been.

Next cover of The Advocate: "Gays to DNC: We Want Our Money Back!"

Sunday, January 10, 2010

Once For Slavery, Always For Slavery

Once upon a time, the Democratic Party stood for slavery, racism, segregation and oppression. No, I'm not talking about 1860, when the Democrats ran dead opposed to Abraham Lincoln, the first Republican President. It was actually about this time two years ago, as a matter of fact, when then-Senator and presidential candidate, Joe Biden, called then-Senator and presidential opponent Barack Obama, "...the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy..." Yeah, he really said that, though many of you probably forgot.

And it was just a few years before that, in 2004, when then-presidential candidate Howard Dean (D-VT), decided that he "want(ed) to be the candidate for guys with Confederate flags in their pickup trucks". The following year, after being crowned Chairman of the Democrat National Committee, Dean remarked "Do you think the Republican National Committee could this many people of color in one room? Maybe if they had the hotel staff in here!" Ha! Wow, Mr. Dean, you were really sharp that night.

Not to be outdone today's Senate Majority Leader, Democrat Harry Reid of Nevada, has been revealed to have said during the 2008 presidential election that Barack Obama should run because he is a "light skinned" black "with no negro dialect unless he wanted to have one." Now, that's what I call racist...or, as liberals are calling it, racially "insensitive".

After years of being told that the GOP is the racist party, perhaps we can now admit the truth. The Republican Party not only is not the racist party, it's not even as racist as the Democrat Party. Yes, it is true that the Democrat Caucus in Congress contains more black people, but Democrats are so scared of intellectual black people they elect complete idiots like Maxine Waters and Sheila Jackson-Lee or criminals like William Jefferson. Even the only black man they ever considered "presidential material" is Barack Obama, the biggest buffoon of all time. At least black Republicans are people like Clarence Thomas and Colin Powell and Condi Rice.

It took Republicans to end slavery, segregation and discrimination. And now it will take Republicans to end the drumbeat of racist Democrats and their seething hatred of decent black people.