The Tusk...

Lifting The Veil: America Finally Meets Barack Obama

2010-06-20T08:13:00.003-05:00

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 loop...run 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.

You Lie! Episode 19,435

2010-06-18T20:27:00.002-05:00

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…

STEPHANOPOULOS: Here’s the…

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.

Accountability

2010-06-16T20:47:00.003-05:00

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.

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

2010-06-15T23:15:00.004-05:00

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...

Debra Medina, 9/11 Truther

2010-02-11T21:41:00.003-06:00

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.

Governor Debra Medina?

2010-02-09T23:49:00.002-06:00

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.

Perry Holds Commanding Lead in Texas GOP Primary and General Election

2010-02-03T15:02:00.003-06:00

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? ;)

Candadian Provincial Premier To Seek Medical Care In The United States

2010-02-02T21:37:00.002-06:00

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

2010-02-02T16:20:00.003-06:00

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.

Amateur Hour at the WH

2010-01-29T17:30:00.003-06:00

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

2010-01-29T01:08:00.002-06:00

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.

State Of The Union 2010

2010-01-28T23:43:00.003-06:00

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.

The Adventures of TOTUS

2010-01-26T19:37:00.005-06:00

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 speech...to 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

2010-01-26T02:45:00.004-06:00

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.

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

2010-01-23T10:27:00.005-06:00

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.

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

2010-01-21T19:49:00.004-06:00

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.

Scott Brown Wins! My take on tonight's election

2010-01-19T22:22:00.007-06:00

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!

Scott Brown Wins! Won't He?

2010-01-18T19:22:00.004-06:00

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.

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

2010-01-14T23:47:00.006-06:00

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.

MA Senate Race Turns Brutal...literally

2010-01-13T17:48:00.006-06:00

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 expect...by 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.

Gays To Democrats: Kiss Our Collective Ass

2010-01-11T19:03:00.004-06:00

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!"

Once For Slavery, Always For Slavery

2010-01-10T21:15:00.005-06:00

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.

Job Security: Clinton and Obama Style

2009-12-09T10:38:00.003-06:00

The Hill reports on the $787 billion stimulus stimulus package passed by Barry and Congress was most effective in ensuring job security. Unfortunately for the rest of America, the stimulus bill served none other than Clinton and Obama's campaign pollsters and fellow campaign staffers.

"Federal records show that $5.97 million from the $787 billion stimulus helped preserve three jobs at Burson-Marsteller, the global public-relations and communications firm headed by Penn." "Burson-Marsteller won the contract to work on a public-relations campaign to advertise the national switch from analog to digital television. Nearly $2.8 million of the contract was issued to Penn’s polling firm, Penn, Schoen & Berland Associates, according to federal records.
Federal records also show that a former adviser to President Barack Obama’s 2008 presidential campaign received nearly $70,000 from that contract to help alert viewers in difficult-to-reach communities that their televisions would soon no longer receive broadcast signals. "

The nation should be nothing short of appalled. At a time where the economy and citizens alike are struggling to survive, these career politicians use taxpayers money to ensure their future candidacy, and it's disgusting. I say we throw all of these bums out and start from scratch. Their egotistical sense of entitlement is costing the nation billions at a time when we can't afford it.

Mayor Bill White makes campaign stop in San Antonio ::snore::

2009-12-08T16:34:00.003-06:00

Texas gubernatorial candidate and San Antonio native Mayor Bill White made his first campaign visit in the Countdown City this week.

White blasted Perry on a handful of issues including education. White states he's eager to work towards improving the education system in Texas with specific programs geared towards helping "Hispanics and other minorities." Additionally, White has a brilliant scheme for decreasing the drop out rate: "...Letting people know that by leaving school early they will cut their earning ability in half." With ideas as revolutionary as this one, White should have world hunger and world peace solved BEFORE he ever makes it to the Governors Mansion.

White's, obviously targeted statements to the Hispanic community of South Texas are nothing short of insulting. If his overall goal is to advance the quality of public education for the state of Texas, then that's fine. I'm all for it, but by singling out the Hispanic community he is reducing his statements to political rhetoric to advance the Hispanic GOTV while simultaneously insulting the whole of the Hispanic community. Clearly, those po' Mesicans wouldn't get anywhere without
that White guy, guey. Enough with the political pandering, let's see some action. Show me how you are going to better the quality of education FOR ALL students, not just those Hispanic sounding names.

New Gallup Poll shows Obama at 47%, WH responds with "Nuh Uh!"

2009-12-08T10:48:00.003-06:00

The latest Gallup poll shows Obama sittin pretty at 47%, which is the lowest December rating of any President in US history.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs fired back at the poll by questioning the reliability of the organization. "I'm sure a 6-year-old with a crayon could do something not unlike that. I don't put a lot of stake in, never have, in the EKG that is the daily Gallup trend" stated Gibbs.

It's alright Gibbs, denial is always the first step.

911 Call: "I don't want to have to kill this man, but I will kill him graveyard dead, ma'am"

2009-12-07T21:02:00.004-06:00

This is by far one of the most amazing and saddest videos (audios) I have ever seen/heard. More than anything else, the following is exhibit A about lawful gun owners in America, particularly those who have used their weapons to defend themselves. Far from the gun-crazed, trigger happy racists the liberal antigun crowd would have you believe, they are really just regular folks who want to go about their business. The remorse in the woman's voice at the end of the video gave me goosebumps. And the dispatcher deserves a medal for being as supportive as she was of this brave woman defending herself and her home. It's a tragedy, no matter how you look at it. You can read the full story and hear the entire 34 minute 911 call here.

Rick Perry Goes After Kay Bailey Hutchison's Washington Record As A Big Spender

2009-12-04T21:33:00.003-06:00

Governor Rick Perry is turning up the heat on Senator Kay Bailey Hutchison's record as one of Washington's biggest spending Republicans. Fiscal and economic issues is, after all, Rick Perry's strong suit heading into this primary election, which should prove to be a tough and bloody one. I'm supporting Rick Perry, but will obviously vote for Kay Baby in the general election should she win the primary. The following ads sure do hurt, though. Don't they, Kay?

Frankly, Kay Bailey Hutchison has really picked a bad time to challenge Rick Perry for governor. While she isn't getting any younger, the good Senator isn't too old to wait four more years to run when there will be an open primary with no incumbent, one she could almost certainly win hands down. But the fact of the matter is that the battle between these two Texas political heavyweights will come down to the one thing that is on everyone's mind right now: the economy. And on tht issue Kay Bailey Hutchison cannot compete with Governor Perry. Period. He's a fiscal hawk and a committed conservative on economic matters. Kay Bailey's record will kill her chances at the govenor's mansion if Rick Perry continues to hammer her with ads like these. The last thing Senator Hutchison needs is to be portrayed as "one of them," but Rick Perry does that quite effectively in these ads.

By The Numbers

2009-12-04T20:44:00.003-06:00

A few numbers and statistics for you today:

The number of Americans who view torture as "justified" is now at a five year high according to a Pew Poll.

President Obama's job approval is at 48% according to...CNN? It's about time. Rasmussen has known this for weeks! His RCP average is below 50% as well, at 49.3%.

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) is getting pounced by his two likely Republican opponents by as much as 10 points. Poor Harry.

The unemployment rate dropped to 10% according to the government report released today, likely due to the traditional uptick in employment during the holiday season.

it's currently 30 degrees in San Antonio, and Houston (yes, Houston, as in Houston, Texas) recorded its earliest snowfall evah!! today, which surely came as a surprise to green geeks everywhere who probably don't think much of the mega-huge scandal involving hacked emails from some of the top global warming fanatics out there, otherwise known as "climategate". If you haven't heard of it it may be because the networks have been virtually silent on the matter.

Dem run Congress to American public: We Own You

2009-12-02T12:12:00.003-06:00

Washington Examiner reports on the demo proposed health care bill.

"Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius would be awarded unprecedented new powers under the proposal, including the authority to decide what medical care should be covered by insurers as well as the terms and conditions of coverage and who should receive it...The HHS secretary would also have the power to decide where abortion is allowed under a government-run plan."

The end result would be the federal government having direct control over the insurance market as opposed to the current system where the states have the discretionary power to regulate the market. The American public made it perfectly clear that a universal health care system was not to be tolerated, and now the demos have the audacity to implement this backdoor policy in attempts to control the insurance market.

The articles continues with: "Critics of the bill said this was an example of how the new bill could empower HHS to alter health care delivery, but Democrats argue they would rather have the government making these decisions." THEY ARE THE GOVERNMENT. Even if Congress was doing an amazing job, it would still be absurd to allow this much government intervention.

Gallup polls show Congress approvals at a mere 21%. Not a stellar rating there, Nancy. Additionally, their is a higher percentage of Americans disapproving the health care bill, also according to Gallup.

Demos attempts to force this issue down the throats of Americans will result in a "throw the bums out" GOTV effort come election time. Keep it up and you won't be there for long.

Disappointment has a name

2009-12-02T11:05:00.002-06:00

Obama's long awaited speech from West Point was nothing short of disappointing. After prioritizing a litany of important matters (i.e. family vacations or lobbying to have the Olympics held in Chicago), President Obama has decided that it is time to send our boys overseas some reinforcements and get them home by 2011.

The Commander in Chief, against the advice of General Stanley McChrystal, decided to send in 30,000 troops, hoping that the rest of Americas allies will pick up the slack and make his 18 month time table work. Work---just in time for his re-election campaign. Writer Gabor Steingart put it best: "the horror of war is to end and the draw down will begin. The doves of peace will be let free."

Although el Presidente did mention the pros and cons of Islam, he failed to mention if or when the Afghanistan military (or government for that matter) would be able to adjust to the 18 month plan.

Americans watching the event were left with the glaring and obvious question: is this course of action going to lead us straight into the hands of the Taliban and other terrorist networks?

Granted, I understand Obama can't lay out in detail their plans for the next few months on national television, but it would be nice to know that the Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces was listening to the advice of his generals as opposed to putting soldiers to sleep with his tired and empty speeches.

Whether it's the War on Terror, the economic crisis or the health care bill --- this is not time for rhetoric. It's time for action, not political pandering. The decisions he and our legislators make (or refuse to make) directly impact the lives of millions of Americans...Americans who can't afford to wait on "hope" any longer.

Wake up Mr. President.

President Obama Still Sitting On His Hands as Troops Wait For Reinforcements

2009-11-29T19:23:00.003-06:00

Hey, remember when I wrote about President Obama's dithering on whether or not to send more troops to Afghanistan? That was two months ago. At the time of that writing, on October 1, it had already been a month since General McChrystal's request for more troops had been leaked to the pubic. Now, three months after that first request, President Obama has still not made up his mind about what he will do. Despite the recommendations of his military brass, President Obama has decided to host state dinners and golf instead.

This isn't just the musings of your humble blogger. No it appears that troops all over Afghanistan are waiting for assistance from their brothers and sisters in uniform. This from The Washington Times:

A Washington Times reporter and photographer spent much of October - the deadliest month for American troops there thus far - with U.S. Army soldiers in southern Afghanistan, who spoke openly of the need for more boots on the ground, the more and sooner the better.

"We need more troops," said Army Staff Sgt. Daniel Paul Rabidou, 24, stationed at a small combat outpost in the Maywand district. "It's just as simple as that."

The Blackwatch unit - Bravo Company, 2nd Battalion, 1st Infantry Regiment, with the 5th Stryker Brigade - arrived at the outpost Sept. 13. Since their arrival, they have lost three soldiers and two civil-affairs officers. Bombings have destroyed three of their four Stryker vehicles.

But don't worry Tusk readers, because President Obama is expected to announce an increase in troops (a "surge" some people may call it) of about 30,000 to 40,000. Hey, why I believe that's just about how many General McChrystal said he needed three months ago! Hold on a second, and I'll double check. Why, yes! Yes, it is! Thank you, Mr. Obama, for taking 90 days to make sure you really had your thumb completely up your ass before doing precisely what your generals told you was needed to begin with. Kudos, sir. You are a paragon of military genius. Truly.

Wadda schmuck.

Texas vs. California

2009-11-26T20:00:00.004-06:00

I came across an article during my daily google search for "why texas is awesome." (That was a joke, I only do that about once a week.) The article, written by Olsen Ebright, Jonathan Lloyd and Jenna Briand, lists the "top 10 reasons" California is better than Texas. Written on November 2 of this year my first thought was why an article of this sort would need to be a collaborative effort between three journalists; especially since this scathing rebuttle will be written by only me, and be totally effective at that. But I digress.

Among the best reasons given are the following uber-convincing "facts"(I'm not making this up):

Number 10 - "People want to come here."

Number 8 - "Our waistlines are under control."

Number 6 - And I quote; "Our governor can beat up your governor."

Number 4 - "Plenty of eyecandy"

Number 1 - "Texas isn't home to George W. Bush"

As you can see, the list is a real intellectual masterpiece. Don't worry, though, I think I can manage responding to this without pointing out that Californians are leaving in droves to come to Texas. I can do it without mentioning that Texas is now viewed as the model of how to run a state. I'll even refrain from using silly (but true) arguments like "Texas doesn't have earthquakes". No, I don't have to do any of those things because it really boils down to this:

"Journalists" in Texas aren't writing pitiful, pansy-ass, laugh-out-loud hillarious articles begging Texans to stay here. Jealous much?

How The GOP Got Her Groove Back

2009-11-24T22:23:00.003-06:00

There is a tendancy, perhaps, to believe that the Repulican party has had little to do with it's recent surge in popularity. One would be misguided, however, to overlook the steely discipline and "return to principles" the GOP has undergone since the great Democrat takeover. Still, you have to admit that the blunders of our amateur-in-chief have certainly helped. His daily (and I do mean daily) fuck ups are piling on, leaving onlookers either deathly nauseated or utterly confused.

As of this post, there have been three polls in the last week showing our gallant leader with an approval rating under 50%: Gallup, 49, Rasmussen, 45, FNC, 46. Most importantly within the data is the the glistening jewel of hope amid the numbers of the Rasmussen poll. Not only is his approval rating at 45%, but The One's disapproval numbers are at a whopping %54. That leaves President Hopenchange with an approval index of -9 points. Ouch, Barry. Ouch.

Alas, he has brought it all upon himself. Three months (Three months! Three! One, two, three!) after General McChrystal asked for additional troops, President Obama has finally decided to send 34,000 soldiers to Afghanistan to reinforce our military there. Or (to measure time the same way liberals preferred to measure time during the Iraq war) three months and about 170 dead U.S. soldiers who died waiting for the President to quit dithering and make a decision. This is change we can believe in.

Or maybe the change comes in a Healthcare reform bill opposed by 56% of Americans:

The big takeaway from the internals is, as always, independent voters. They are looking a lot more like Republicans on this issue. Where Republican voters oppose ObamaCare 83/13, independents aren’t far behind at 70/23. Self-described moderates have fled as well, opposing ObamaCare by almost exactly the overall topline, 55/39.

Majorities of both men (61%) and women (52%) among likely voters now oppose ObamaCare. Every age demographic except 18-29 year olds oppose it by majorities ranging from 58% to 65%. Every income demographic except the under-$20K group opposes it by a majority, even the heretofore sympathetic $100K+ demo, which opposes it 58/41 — with 50% strongly opposed.

It alost makes me sad for Mr. Obama, except not really because I completely hope his healthcare bill flops like a fat guy at a diving contest.

Maybe it's not Afghanistan or healthcare that is causing independents to flock to the GOP by a 24-point margin. Maybe Americans are disgusted and appalled that tens of billions of dollars in stimulus money went to congressionsal districts that do not exist!!! That's right. Even though there are 435 congressional districts, the government-run economic recovery website lists 875...more than double the actual amount. Perhaps its the fact that the guy in charge of Obama's "Recovery Board", Early Devaney, says he is not able to certify that the jobs "created or saved" listed on the administration's recovery.org website are accurate. In fact, at least 10% of the jobs listed are phony. That includes over 90,000 (and counting) phantom jobs that newspapers have found so far, to say nothing of the 60,000 jobs the administration itself slashed from the report for not being able to justify the numbers.

Maybe it's one bow, after another, after another.
I used to call the administration a clown car, but it's really more like a gas chamber where accountability, logic, reason and class go to die.

Fiasco: Healthcare Showdown Underway in the House UPDATE: Bill passes 220-215; 39 Dems vote No, 1 GOPer votes Yes

2009-11-07T20:42:00.003-06:00

Debate opened today in the House of Representatives on the Democrats' proposed healthcare reform bill with the intention of voting on the 2,000 page proposal sometime Sunday - or later. Who knows? After all, the Democrats are in charge of this so, ya know, whenever.

The House version under consideration currently contains mandates that everyone buy insurance with stiff penalties if you don't. Those Americans not willing to comply with the government's mandates on health insurance will be made to pay up to $250,000 in fines or face as much as five years in prison, which is precisely the kind of gentle nudging one expects from liberals hell-bent on seeing their Utopian society come to fruition on the backs of their fellow citizens. Congressman Dave Camp, the ranking Republican on the House Ways and Means Committee fills us in on some important details:

Today, Ranking Member of the House Ways and Means Committee Dave Camp (R-MI) released a letter from the non-partisan Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT) confirming that the failure to comply with the individual mandate to buy health insurance contained in the Pelosi health care bill (H.R. 3962, as amended) could land people in jail. The JCT letter makes clear that Americans who do not maintain “acceptable health insurance coverage” and who choose not to pay the bill’s new individual mandate tax (generally 2.5% of income), are subject to numerous civil and criminal penalties, including criminal fines of up to $250,000 and imprisonment of up to five years.

In response to the JCT letter, Camp said: “This is the ultimate example of the Democrats’ command-and-control style of governing – buy what we tell you or go to jail. It is outrageous and it should be stopped immediately.”

With a price tag of a nice and tidy 2.6 trillion dollars according to the Heritage Foundation, one might wonder how we're going to pay for all of that. But don't worry! If we do our patriotic duty and pay more taxes then we can well cover the cost of our socialized healthcare debacle. I mean, hey, it works in Canada, right? I mean, er...nevermind:

After more than a decade of public healthcare with mandatory coverage, so many Canadian doctors have left the practice and so many young people have entered other fields that Canada ranks 26th of 28 developed nations in its ratio of physicians to population. Once, Canada ranked among the leaders in the number of physicians, but that was before government healthcare drove doctors out of the practice in droves.

The fundamental fact is that we cannot cover 36 million new patients without more doctors and nurses, much less with the declining census of medical professionals the Canadian experience points to. A recent survey of doctors by the Pew Institute found that 45 percent of all practicing doctors would consider retiring or closing their practices if the Obama healthcare bill passes. This scarcity of medical personnel heightens the likelihood of draconian rationing, lengthy waiting lists and lower-quality medical care for all of us, particularly for the elderly.

But, honestly, why should grandma undergo a necessary life saving surgery when she can just take a pain pill and die quietly at home? I mean, right? I guess that's Democats' idea of "cost saving measures". Not that there's anything wrong with a good vicodin from time to time, but I'd hardly call this sort of healthcare "rational".

But there is reason to be hopefull, my dear Tusk readers. As of this post, fully 35 Democrats oppose this legislation, according to Congressman Eric Cantor of Virginia. Although that is short of the 41 Democrat "no's" needed to defeat it, it is still a good start. And remember, the bill still has to pass the Senate, where Tom Coburn of Oklahoma may force a reading of the full bill that could literally take months to complete. As Hot Air points out, the bill could quite literally filibuster itself.

And this is what it boils down to ladies and gentlemen; the democrats' manic obsession with controlling the most essential and personal aspects of your life. If you fail to comply with their clumsily mapped out formula of the "good life" then you are subject to massive fines or even jail time. This is the essence of freedom under their regime. It is a system in which the most basic and fundamental liberties are stripped from the citizen, wrapped in a nice little bow and handed to the government. If you think stopping them from taking it is hard now, wait until you see how hard it will be to get that freedom back once (if) we lose it.

I've said it once, and I will say it again: Vote Republican, and everything will be ok.

More White House Idiocy On The "Jobs" Report, via ABC's Jake Tapper

2009-10-30T22:30:00.002-05:00

ABC News's Jake Tapper is becoming one of my favorite White House reporters, and has been working on that status for months now. Much like the CBS News report on the same "stimulus" update, ABC is now calculating that if the White House numbers are correct, then it would have cost us about $160,000 per job! The White House says that's "calculator abuse," which is precisely the sort of answer you'd expect from a government run by a bunch of 5 year olds:

Posting its results late this afternoon at Recovery.gov, the White House claimed 640,329 jobs have been created or saved because of the $159 billion in stimulus funds allocated as of Sept. 30.

Officials acknowledged the numbers were not exact, saying that states and localities that reported the numbers have made mistakes.

Ed DeSeve, senior advisor to the president for Recovery Act implementation, said he'd been "scrubbing" the job estimates so much since they came it at the beginning of the month that he now has "dishpan hands and my fingers are worn to the nub."

White House officials heralded the unparalleled transparency in reporting job numbers to the public, but acknowledged there is no consistent standard across states or localities, or among federal agencies giving out stimulus funds, in differentiating between a “saved” job and a “created” job.

The White House argues that the actual job number is actually larger than 640,000 -- closer to 1 million jobs when one factors in stimulus jobs added in October and, more importantly, jobs created indirectly, such as "the waitress who's still on the job," Vice President Biden said today.

So let's see. Assuming their number is right -- 160 billion divided by 1 million. Does that mean the stimulus costs taxpayers $160,000 per job?

Jared Bernstein, chief economist and senior economic advisor to the vice president, called that "calculator abuse."

That's just beautiful. There is "no consistent standard across states or localities, or among federal agencies" for deciding what actually constitutes a saved or created job? What kind of shim-sham operation is this? Is this the government at work, or is it a bad episode of Animaniacs? Perhaps that's a distinction without a difference.

Awesome!: CBS News Goes Nuclear On White House "Jobs" Report; "Not worth the paper it's printed on."

2009-10-30T21:35:00.005-05:00

After months of demonizing Fox News Channel, which finally culminated in an outright attempt to ban the network from interviewing administration officials, it appears the Obama White House may now hav to set their sites on another much less likely foe: CBS News. That's right. The Tiffany Network, better known for its laugh-out-loud hillarious "fake, but true" standard of journalism during the 2004 President Bush Guardgate scandal, is attempting to earn back some of its credibility by shedding some light on the past incompetence of the Obama administration in reporting how many jobs their "stimulus" bill has "saved or created".

There's something about thinking of press secretary Robert Gibbs's reaction to this report that really warms the soul. As Hot Air's Ed Morrissey wonders: "So when does CBS start getting the Fox treatment from Robert Gibbs and Velerie Jarrett?"

One Solid Gold Coward: Obama Dithers on Afghanistan; Questions Linger About Uncooperative Iran

2009-10-29T19:55:00.004-05:00

Earlier this month I reported on President Obama's "ultimatum" to Iran regarding their nuclear weapons. Of course, the very next day I was forced to write another article criticizing the administration's lack of resolve, backing off on their "ultimatum" after less than just 24 hours. And now, according the LA Times, Iran has completely blown off the essentials of the agreement altogether:

The proposal would have depleted Iran's stockpile of nuclear fuel below the threshold necessary for making a single nuclear bomb, possibly creating diplomatic breathing room for a broader agreement between Tehran and those worried about its atomic research program.

But according to the diplomat, Iran wants to send its uranium abroad in smaller batches over an undetermined stretch of time rather than the lump transfer by year's end outlined under the proposal offered by International Atomic Energy Agency chief Mohamed ElBaradei.

Such a change would allow Iran to quickly replenish its stock.

Why doesn't the LA Times (and, for that matter, the American diplomat who called Iran's response "inadequate") just come out say what really happened: Iran has essentially outright declined our offer, as their alternative proposal completely defeats the stated purpose of the original deal. The question remains, though, will Barack Obama finally concede that when it comes to Iran you gotta play hardball. Most likely not, especially if his reaction to this menace is anything like his complete incompetence when it comes to managing his "war of necessity", the war in Afghanistan.

On October 3, I wrote about Barry's inaction on the Afghanistan question. At that time, it had already been over a month since the president had received the recommendations from his generals on the ground. As of today, he still has not offered any direction, and now even the Europeans are growing impatient with his indecision. From the German news magazine der Spiegel :

For once, this hesitation cannot be attributed to widespread war fatigue in Europe. The mission in Afghanistan is seen as a toxic issue in all Western nations, and every government that has provided troops has come under sharp criticism at home. What the US’s NATO allies now find far more irritating is US President Barack Obama’s silence on the issue.

The world has been waiting for clear words from the White House for months. Obama has had government and military analysts studying the military and political situation in the embattled Hindu Kush region since early January. He appointed Richard Holbrooke, probably the US’s most effective diplomat in crisis situations, to be his special envoy to the “AfPak” region, he has replaced generals and he has deployed more troops. The answers Obama asked his experts to provide after taking office have been sitting on his desk for a long time. But the conclusions vary. Obama will have to make his own decision, one that will shape his political fate. …

Whether it means withdrawal or a troop buildup, NATO expects Obama to make a decision. So far, no one knows which direction he favors. Even experienced Washington insiders have encountered a wall of silence at the White House, leading Europeans to question whether Washington even believes in its war anymore.

Funny that the Europeans are demanding an answer--any answer--from Obama on the Afghanistan issue. In fact, what they are really wondering is why it is taking Obama so long to retreat after they were so nice to preemptively give him that shiny new Nobel Peace Prize.

It is simply an undeniable fact that our president is in over his head and has no idea - none - how to deal with this situation or a host of others. Confronted with a reality that is far different than his "hope" and "change" message, he is completely hopeless. The brave new leader the American people put their faith in has turned out to be a paper tiger, indeed. As the world grows more and more dangerous, and more and more troops die in the mountains of Afghanistan, our president is taking his good time in making any decision concerning their struggle, ignoring his generals' pleas for reinforcements while thinking of more "solutions" that only undermine our mission and needlessly cost us more American lives.

And so this is the price we pay for placing our trust in pretty words and lofty rhetoric. The One who was supposed to usher in a new era of international goodwill towards America is only earning us the confusion of our friends and the emboldening of our enemies.

Obama Golfs While America Burns

2009-10-26T19:22:00.003-05:00

President Obama, having won his election and a new, shiny Nobel Peace Prize, has apparently deemed himself eligible for a little R&R. Or, perhaps not a little. A lot, actually. After nine months in office, President O (it looks like a zero, get it?) has tied President George W. Bush for "number of rounds of golf played in office". 24 rounds in case, you were wondering. It took President Bush 2 years and 10 months to put in that much time on the links.

Call me crazy, but am I the only one who remembers all of the liberal bellyaching over how much time spent at Camp David, a fully outfitted presidential retreat, often accompanied by aides and advisors? I'm not a golfer, but I don't believe golf courses typically lend themselves to handeling national crises. Now again, frankly I don't care how many times the president plays golf. The only point here is that liberals acted as if Bush were never working on anything, only enjoying the benefits of being the most powerful man in the world.

Aw shucks mister! Those polls don't mean nothing

2009-10-23T10:26:00.003-05:00

Peggy Noonan had a great OpEd in today's issue of the Wall Street Journal entitled It's His Rubble Now. In it she describes the huge disparity in approval ratings and overall demeanor between George W. Bush post 9/11 and Barack Obama post 01/20/09.

In the aftermath of 9/11 Bush didn't stand before the American people making excuses. Nor did he stand around pointing fingers at previous administrations, scrambling to find a scapegoat. He stood before international media and vowed to keep America safe and he did just that for the remainder of his administration.

Comparatively, Obama seems content to stand around blaming everyone and anyone within his vicinity for the status-quo. Noonan writes:

The president said last week, at a San Francisco fund-raiser, that he's busy with a "mop," "cleaning up somebody else's mess," and he doesn't enjoy "somebody sitting back and saying, 'You're not holding the mop the right way.'" Later, in New Orleans, he groused that reporters are always asking "Why haven't you solved world hunger yet?" His surrogates and aides, in appearances and talk shows, have taken to remembering, sometimes at great length, the dire straits we were in when the presidency began. But their recent return to this theme is unbecoming. Worse, it is politically unpersuasive.

We know that it's politically unpersuasive, the best indicator of this is every approval rating poll within the last few months. Noonan continues:"The polls now, with the presidential approval numbers going down and the disapproval numbers going up."

The American people were fooled into believe that this was the man who could turn our economy around and restore our international street cred and they are quickly realizing that he is incapable of doing so. Not only is he incapable of doing so, but he is unwilling to do so by continuously blaming the previous administration and the whole of the Republican party for his shortcomings.

Wake up America. We did this to ourselves...remember that come 2010 and 2012.

White House Attempts to Ban Fox News From Interviewing "Pay Czar"; Major News Groups Rebel

2009-10-22T21:15:00.005-05:00

In his on going effort to demonize Fox News Channel, President Barack Obama and his advisers attempted one of the most egregious abuses of executive power in it's short history - and only one of the firsts, no doubt - by attempting to ban Fox News White House correspondent Major Garrett from interviewing one of the mysterious White House "czars". The White House's "war on Fox News" has even involved senior advisers telling other media outlets that they "ought not treat" Fox as a legitimate news organization:

White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel told CNN on Sunday that President Obama does not want "the CNNs and the others in the world [to] basically be led in following Fox."

Obama senior adviser David Axelrod went further by calling on media outlets to join the administration in declaring that Fox is "not a news organization."

"Other news organizations like yours ought not to treat them that way," Axelrod counseled ABC's George Stephanopoulos. "We're not going to treat them that way."

George Stephanopoulos, a former Bill Clinton advisor, is one of countless former Democrat aides an officials now working for "legitimate" news organizations as journalists. Chris Matthews of MSNBC is another.

But frankly, the more important part of this story is how the other media outlets, as explained in the clip at the bottom of this entry, managed to salvage their own integrity by refusing to go along with any interview if Fox News was not included. This, by anyone's measure, is a complete repudiation by the major news organizations of the White House's claim that Fox News should be ostracised. And this rebellion by the MSM could be a turning point in my view from the warm reception the media has given the president so far. Just yesterday, ABC News's Jake Tapper, questioned the appropriateness of the White House's eagerness to "decide that a news organization is not one". He even calls Fox News one of "our sister organizations":

Tapper: It’s escaped none of our notice that the White House has decided in the last few weeks to declare one of our sister organizations “not a news organization” and to tell the rest of us not to treat them like a news organization. Can you explain why it’s appropriate for the White House to decide that a news organization is not one –
(Crosstalk)

Gibbs: Jake, we render, we render an opinion based on some of their coverage and the fairness that, the fairness of that coverage.

Tapper: But that’s a pretty sweeping declaration that they are “not a news organization.” How are they any different from, say –

Gibbs: ABC -

Tapper: ABC. MSNBC. Univision. I mean how are they any different?

Gibbs: You and I should watch sometime around 9 o’clock tonight. Or 5 o’clock this afternoon.

Tapper: I’m not talking about their opinion programming or issues you have with certain reports. I’m talking about saying thousands of individuals who work for a media organization, do not work for a “news organization” -- why is that appropriate for the White House to say?

Gibbs: That’s our opinion.

Is this for real? Where is the outrage from the liberal consortium in this country regarding this most blatant assault on such a fundamental part of any democratic society - a free, open and adversarial press?

This attempt at censorship by the White House proves what I have said over and over again; this administration is accustomed to a campaign in which they were fawned over by the media and the people at large. Now, unable to adjust from "campaign mode" to "leader mode", they have been reduced to a bunch of crying pantywaists who can no more lead this nation than Chris Matthews can do a sit up. It's amateur hour at the White House, and we've all got front row seats.

Pathetic.

D-Day Veteran Philip Spooner Speaks Up For Gay Marriage

2009-10-21T20:58:00.002-05:00

Seriously one of the most awesome videos I have ever seen.

Citing the ovens at Buchenwald and Dachau, he says: “I have seen with my own eyes the consequence of a caste system and of making some people less than others or second class. Never again. We must have equal rights for everyone.

“It’s what this country was started for.”

Hot Air's Allahpundit Should Have Faith In The Numbers...and so should you.

2009-10-20T19:42:00.006-05:00

The election of Barack Hussein Obama may well go down in history as one of the most bizarre events of the 21st Century. It will, at least, if his presidency continues on as it has throughout his first year so far. I must confess, I was very confused by his election last November. I simply could not believe that people actually believed what he believed. And it turns out I was right. In fact, less than half of Americans believe what the president believes on "important issues":

WASHINGTON (CNN) – For the first time since he took over in the White House, Americans don't see eye to eye with President Barack Obama on the important issues, according to a new national poll. But the CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey does indicate that a majority approve of how Obama's handling his duties as president.

According to the poll, which was released Tuesday, 48 percent of people questioned say that they agree with Obama on the issues that matter most to them, with 51 percent saying no. That's a switch from April, when 57 percent said they agreed with the president on important issues, with 41 percent disagreeing.

While I feel a little comforted with the fact that Americans "no longer" see eye to eye with the president, can anyone explain how a nation in which less than half of the people agree with the man on top can still enjoy a 55% approval rating? It's mind boggling to me that people who disagree with the president on "important issues" still approve of his handling of the job. Is it that they find his enormous ears to be endearing? Is it his toothy (very toothy) smile? Do they think it's cute when he kinda sorta almost starts talking ebonics when he's talking to a mostly black audience? I don't get it. Anyone? (For my real explanation, continue reading)

Allahpundit at Hot Air(my favorite blog) is reporting that it's not just CNN finding these grim "single issue" numbers for Obama, either. Rasmussen and Harris are finding precisely the same thing. On virtually every single issue the voters do not support the president. But, like me, Allahpundit is stomped by the overall approval numbers. He thinks something is fishy, using the approval numbers on Iraq as an example:

Actually, I’m more interested in the numbers on Iraq. Why would the GOP lead by 19 points? And why would that lead have almost doubled in just the past month? Iraq’s been completely off the media radar screen. Either the respondents are so disillusioned with Hopenchange that they’re now reflexively answering each question with the equivalent of a middle finger to The One or there’s something fishy going on here.

But not as fishy as this. From the Harris Interactive poll, among a sample of 2,293 adults. You’ve got to be kidding:

On 12 separate issues, the number willing to say he’s doing “pretty good” tops out at 41 percent? CNN has his job approval at 55 percent; even assuming that’s a bit skewed, it can’t be much worse than 50. In which case, how you do get from a high of 41 on individual issues to overall approval of 50? My inner pessimist says things can’t be this rosy for the GOP. Can they?

Well, yes, Allahpundit, they can. Personally, I am more inclined to believe the issue by issue numbers for this reason: While issues like Iraq have not been pushed in the media very much, the accusations of racism against anyone who disagrees with or questions the president's policies has been. It is this bloggers opinion that the voters are fooling themselves into saying "I support the president, I only disagree with him on this one issue...and this one...and this one, and this one, and this one. But other than those he's doing a great job, so I'm not racist, see!" If you care to be more optimistic about the voters' motives behind weird numbers (and I'm not) then you could even say that Americans are anxious to see our first black president do well, and therefor give him high marks overall, but low marks when it comes down to the nitty gritty specifics.

But if Allahpundit is really interested in seeing if the GOP can really be doing so well (in every last poll issued) then let's look at where the money is going. WSJ is reporting that the RNC has outraised the DNC for the last two months, due largely to a "rise in small donors". That means "average Americans", the same people polled who gave us the odd skew in approval numbers.

So don't worry Allahpundit. Nothing fishy going on. We really are doing that well!

Less Than A Year And Already Less Popular Than Hillary. Ouch.

2009-10-15T16:28:00.006-05:00

"Why do people hate you?" asked little Terrance to the President of the United States. His answer is the most interesting part of the conversation, however:

Well, now, first of all. I did get elected president, so not everyone hates me, nah. I got a whole lotta votes. I wanna make sure everyone understands.

Here, once again, we witness the president dismissing honest disagreement and opposition to his ultra left wing government takeover to being "poke(d) a little bit" so that we can "keep him on his toes". Or, as he more succinctly puts it, it's just "politics".

Let us, for a moment, study the president's assertion that not everyone hates him. After all, he did get a whole lotta votes! The latest Fox News Poll show less than 50% of Americans would vote for Barack Obama if an election were held today. As a matter of fact, its not even close to 50%. It's 43%. Dayum, Barry. Dayum.

In what may be the ultimate job rating, 43 percent of voters say that they would vote to re-elect President Obama if the 2012 election were held today, down from 52 percent six months ago, from April 22-23, 2009.

Obama's job approval rating comes in at 49 percent this week. That's down just one percentage point from late September, but it marks a new low approval for the president -- and the first time the Fox News poll has measured his approval below 50 percent.

Well, hey, I mean 43% isn't that bad. Come to think of it, that's just about the same share of the vote that Bill Clinton won in 1992. Of course, that was back before Democrats pretended to care that sometimes president's get elected without a "clear majority".

Anyway. That FNC Poll is not the only problem Mr. Obama is facing in the polls. Despite her declaration that she will not run again, no one can write off the political calculation of one Mrs. Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama's Secretary of State and former Democrat primary rival. I can't help but see her as miserable every time she is on television. We would be kidding ourselves to believe she would never consider another primary challenge to her new boss, especially given that Gallup now shows that she is more popular than the president himself, a fact that must have her licking her chops in anticipation of an inner-party "Draft Hillary" moment:

Gallup points out that in this latest survey, Hillary Clinton is now more popular than Obama. Sixty-two percent say they have a favorable impression of the Secretary of State, versus 34 percent who have an unfavorable impression. That's a big change from the height of the battle for the Democratic nomination last year; in February 2008, just 48 percent had a favorable impression of Mrs. Clinton, versus 49 percent who had an unfavorable impression.

Frankly, the only thing more fun than watching those two duke it out again would be the laugh-out-loud hillarious spectacle the entire Democrat party would put on as they simultaneously try to cast Republicans as racist for opposing the reelection of the first black president while nursing a large faction within their own party that doesn't want him there, either. Why, it would be like conservative political porn!

Obama continues to cater to illegal immigrants

2009-10-12T08:56:00.003-05:00

And we thought McCain was bad....

Sheriff Joe Arpaio of Maricopa County, Arizona, known through out the country for his no nonsense stance on illegal immigrants in his home county, has been reprimanded by the Obama Administration.

Sheriff Arpaio (better know simply as Sheriff Joe) and his deputies were authorized by the federal government to detain, question and verify the status of suspected illegal immigrants in the area. After receiving a litany of complaints from ~~liberals~~ various individuals, the Obama Administration revoked his ability to make immigration arrests. Sheriff Joe responded by stating that he would continue to make arrests and drive those suspect individuals to the border if federal officers refused to make the arrest: "I'll take a little trip to the border and turn them over to the border," he said.

Paco Fabian, spokesman for America's Voice, was pleased with the Obama Administration and had the following to say: "The federal government is lending its full force and legitimacy to a rogue cop certain to go down in history as a serial violator of civil rights and an enemy of the Latino community." The vast majority of individuals Sheriff Joe dealt with were ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS and thus had no civil liberties or rights. Those individuals who he did question who were American citizens ceded certain of their liberties to the federal government under the Social Contract in order to secure a safe nation and indefinitely ensure their rights. This has been the case since the inception of our nation, just because you throw the PC term of "racial profiling" in the mix doesn't change the facts.

Side note: It's not racial profiling. Being Hispanic or Mexican isn't a race, it's an ethnicity people.

The article further sympathizes with illegal immigrants by stating: "...But critics of the programme say it wastes police resources needed to fight street crime, promotes racial profiling of Hispanics, targets peaceful workers, breaks up families and breeds distrust of police among immigrants, who become afraid to report crime for fear they will be asked for immigration papers."

The last time I checked it was a crime to be in the country illegally. Moreover, it is the members of the Mexican mafia that are the cause of the violence and street crimes in the vast majority of these border towns in Texas and California.

Sheriff Joe's actions are not targeting peaceful workers,they are targeting individuals who are illegally in the country. Irrespective of how you try to spin it to invoke sympathy from the American people, this is what's happening. Same goes for the remainder of that quote...I'm sorry, but individuals who are here legally do not fear being asked for immigration papers. Who is scared of handing over documents? Is that some strange phobia that has taken over the hispanic community that I'm not privy to? And individuals who do not report crimes to the police for whatever reason, lack the moral character to be citizens of this country.

I had a pretty good understanding of immigration very young age having been born in Juarez, Mexico. I knew that there was a difference between LPR status and citizenship and understood the responsibilities, rights and obligations that came with the latter...as should they.

Is It "Game Over" For Harry Reid?

2009-10-11T18:22:00.004-05:00

The Tusk has mentioned his prospects in this race before, but now it looks like it's all over for Senate Democrat Leader, Harry Reid of Nevada. Polls are consistently showing him lagging behind his two potential competitors, Sue Lowden and Danny Tarkanian. But the surest factor indicating his assured retirement is this:

Though respondents can't decide whom they want to win the Republican primary, they're certain they don't support Reid, the Senate majority leader seeking his fifth consecutive six-year term.

In one general election scenario, 49 percent of respondents picked Lowden and 39 percent chose Reid. In another, 48 percent picked Tarkanian to 43 percent for Reid. That poll, which surveyed 500 voters Tuesday through Thursday, has a margin of error of plus or minus 4.5 percentage points...

...For months the perception of Reid among voters has been fixed, with near 100 percent name recognition and a high number of voters viewing him unfavorably. In the latest poll, 38 percent of voters viewed Reid favorably compared to 50 percent with an unfavorable view.

50 percent unfavorable rating for the one of the most powerful Democrats in America? The most interesting part is that no one really cares who runs against him, the prevailing attitude seeming to be simply "get him the hell outta here." It's about time.

Oddly enough, this particular poll is a bit better than last month's Rasmussen Reports survey (my favorite, and the most reliable pollster out there) which showed Reid with a 54% unfavorable rating, including 42% who have a "very unfavorable" view of the Senate's leading liberal. My money is on the Rasmussen poll, given his accuracy in the past. This is good news for Nevada.

DNC Ad: "Healthcare bill is bipartisan. No, wait. Nevermind."

2009-10-10T18:55:00.003-05:00

You really have to hand it to Barack Obama and his crew over at the Democratic National Committee for their abiity to turn virtually nothing into a whole lot of something. In his weekly address, President Obama touted what he seems to think is a wave of bipartisanship over his healthcare reform bill. It doesn't exist, of course, but that didn't stop the DNC from releasing an ad just hours after the address. Why, it almost seems like a concerted effort by liberals to fool the American people into thinking Republicans (the good guys) are now for this heaping pile of bile. The nerve!
That's right! This dramatic government takeover of 1/6 of the nation's economy is so bipartisan that two former Republican senators, one liberal Republican governor and a former Bush cabinet official like it! Well, actually, Bill Frist immediately clarified his remarks once Democrats started using his "I'd probably vote for it" comment. He amended his response 5 days ago, but that didn't stop Democrats from thuggishly quoting him in their ad:

“There are five bills on the floor now -- none of them are perfect. People try to put words in my mouth saying ‘You support the Baucus bill.’ I don’t support the Baucus bill as written today,” Frist told ABC News Radio on Monday. "It’s going to cost way too much and we’re not going to get all the uninsured into the marketplace .... There’s some egregious things in there that will cost all the taxpayers too much money and not give them anything.”

Nothing about this bill is bipartisan. The ad all but admits that by quoting just four Republicans, claiming bipartisan support, then admitting they don't have enough bipartisan support to pass the bill. It's the ultimate flip flop and all within a 30 second ad.

And don't forget, Democrats shouldn't need a single Republican to vote for this bill. They have super-majorities in both chambers of Congress. The fact that they are resorting to ads like these means one thing: they don't even have all of their own ducks lined up to vote for this thing. Not even close. I'm reminded of Republican National Committee chairman, Michael Steele's comments on this very point. "Up or down, baby!"

Barack Obama Wins Nobel Peace Prize

2009-10-09T18:04:00.009-05:00

Barack Obama has won the Nobel Peace Prize. No seriously, stop laughing, he really did. Back in February, twelve days after being sworn in as president, someone thought Barack Obama deserved the Nobel Peace Prize. So, they nominated him. Apparently, 204 other people and organizations were also nominated but couldn't hold a candle to America's first black president, whose crowning achievement thus far is to be America's first black president. Well, that and he's not George W. Bush, which apparently gets you lots of points judging by two of last several choices:

This makes three times, incidentally, in just seven years that the committee’s turned the Peace Prize into a “f*** Bush” award by bestowing it on a liberal American Democrat. The Goracle got it in 2007 and Carter received it in 2002, making today’s announcement yet one more reason to consider The One his presidential heir.

Exit question: There was no one more deserving? Morgan Tsvangirai, Mugabe’s nemesis in Zimbabwe? Iranian protesters? Hello?

If you think you were surprised, guess again? Apparently no one in the White House could believe it either, one of them wondering out loud, "It's not April 1, is it?" No, it's not April 1, and this isn't some fucked up dream, either. What used to be one of the most prestigious committees in the world just awarded what used to be one of the world's most prestigious medals to an amateur, unaccomplished president in the first year of his first term. Only two other sitting U.S. presidents have ever recieved the award, and this year's winner tarnishes the name of one of my favorites, Theodore Roosevelt:

Obama is the third sitting U.S. president -- and the first in 90 years -- to win the coveted peace prize. His predecessors won during their second White House terms, however, and after significant diplomatic achievements. Woodrow Wilson was awarded the prize in 1919, after helping to found the League of Nations and shaping the Treaty of Versailles; and Theodore Roosevelt was the recipient in 1906 for his work to negotiate an end to the Russo-Japanese war.

These two men had meaningful and substantive policy accomplishments, were true statesmen and had regular sized human ears. Meanwhile, the Democrat National Committee is comparing anyone who thinks he doesn't deserve it to terrorists.

This entire ordeal makes this blogger wonder if Barack Obama has ever actually earned anything. He coasted into the White House without ever having muttered a single coherent thought. It was a campaign of anti-Bushisms sprinkled with some Hope and Change rhetoric, and he's been able to deliver on precisely 0% of it. He won his U.S. Senate seat because his opponent's divorce papers were unsealed and revealed some embarrassing things about the candidate. Coincidentally, that's also how he won his state senate seat in Illinois. His is a life not marked by hard work and sacrifice, and certainly not by working for peace, but it is a life marked by charming his way into positions of influence and power, and then squandering it away for lack of a basic ability to lead.

Never before has such a low standard been set for achieving such a prestigious honor. He won this prize precisely the same way he won the presidency. He didn't do anything. He talked about doing something, hoping his giant smile would keep anyone from noticing that he doesn't know what the hell he's doing. Now that Jimmy Carter and Barack Obama have joined the ranks of those previously honored designees, it can be safely said that the Nobel Peace Prize means very little now. Very little, indeed.

Disgraceful.

UPDATE: "Gasps echoed through the Nobel Hall" as prize was announced.

UPDATE: Blogosphere united in utter disbelief. "This is insane."

UPDATE: Time online has field day teasing Obama over his award.

The Other War

2009-10-05T10:36:00.004-05:00

Chris Burgard of Big Hollywood Blog has a great entry out today entitled the War on Propaganda. Burgard writes: "From Sun Tzu to Psy Ops, propaganda has won wars, toppled cultures and changed civilizations. As a self-identified enlightened and educated culture, we thought ourselves beyond such base manipulation. We were wrong."

Burgard continues "On Sept. 20, 2009, President Obama stated that he would look into bailouts for print newspapers because he is concerned that blogs will take over the world and be a threat to democracy. Imagine that: the President of the United States is concerned free speech may be a threat to democracy. Is anybody paying attention?"

The answer is: yes. The conservatives are payin attention, as per usual. The left, however, does not seem to care as they have traditionally been the party that pisses over those...what's the word again?...Rights. RE: The Supreme Court reviewing a case that would further limit our Second Amendent Right. I'm eager to see how that wise Latina woman is going to objectively handle the case.

"President Obama and his team are convinced that they are smarter than the average American citizen. They don’t just say Middle Americans “cling to their Bibles and guns out of fear,” they truly believe it. This administration has banked on using fear to push stimulus packages, carbon taxes, bailouts and health care reform. That is their Waterloo.
Fear is not at the core of the American psyche; independence and patriotism are. And when enough Americans step back, take a breath and realize the extent of this manipulation, they awaken with a determination and that is truly frightening to those that would attempt to govern from the shadows.The fear is now on the other foot" Burgard states.

And so, Burgard concludes: "Apathy can no longer be counted on as a tool for those who would seek to control the populace and erode the Constitution. In this “Constitution Revolution,” the American people are not coming after you with guns or explosives; they are armed with truth, a desire for transparency, a desire for enlightened and informed public discourse, a demand for civic responsibility and a call to politicians to honor their oaths to the US Constitution."

Overall great piece and a fantastic way to start the day combating the liberal agenda.

Attention John McCain: It's Our Party, Too, And, frankly, we don't like you that much.

2009-10-03T17:50:00.004-05:00

Not quite satisfied with having run one of the worst presidential campaigns ever, Senator John McCain is now seeking to reshape the Republican Party in his on image. In other words, to make it a "centrist" party, or as I prefer to call it, "a group of dithering cowards who wet themselves at the slightest sign of liberal hostility".

It’s all part of an approach that is at odds with most other recent failed presidential nominees, whose immediate response to defeat was to retreat from the electoral arena. But those familiar with McCain’s thinking say he has expressed serious concern about the direction of the party and is actively seeking out and supporting candidates who can broaden the party’s reach.

In McCain’s case, that means backing conservative pragmatists and moderates.

Bitter much? That is exactly what this really boils down to. John McCain, after failing to win over the party faithful (also known as "conservatives") is now upset and seeking to make the party as inpalatable to them as his own campaign was. Remember when Ann Coulter threatened to support Hillary Clinton if McCain won the nomination?
Or the cover of Newsweek magazine with conservative big shots staring down on McCain with the headline "There Will Be Blood"? The fact is that Republicans were as enthusiastic about John McCain as Democrats were about John Kerry in 2004. Which is to say, many of us faked it and many more of us didn't even bother.

Liberals within the Republican Party need to make way for a new generation of Republican leadership that does not sacrifice our conservative principles just to be the flavor of the week in the media.

We are the party that believes that a small government is better than a big one; that the unborn have rights; that "the people" have a right to gun ownership; that freedom is for every human being, not just a civilized few; that America is a unique place with a unique role; that taxes should be lower, not higher; that "you cannot help the wage-earner by tearing down the wage-payer"; that the rich are no more guilty than the poor are innocent; that people seeking an American way of life should do so legally; and that there is more good in this country than on any other place on Earth. We are the party of Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Ronald Reagan. We are the Grand Old Party and on these issues THERE CAN BE. NO. COMPROMISE.

Move over, John McCain. Your fifteen minutes are up.

Correction: Barack Obama Has No Testicles; I'm Mad As Hell And You Should Be Too

2009-10-03T01:04:00.004-05:00

This is The Tusk's first correction since we began publication about two months ago. But I'm not embarrassed about it. Yesterday I stunned Tusk readers everywhere by admitting that, despite our previously held beliefs that the president has no balls, he just had "little" ones. But we can all breathe a sigh of relief tonight. Our initial assessment, made after careful observation during the campaign, is true. The president is indeed suffering from a lack of bulk in the male region generally used for reproduction, a condition medical officials call "having no balls to speak of. At all. Period." I believe you can find that in the medical literature between the entries for "hallitosis" and "herpes".

Hot Air is all over this, and I encourage you to read their stuff, but here is a brief synopses of events. Yesterday, at around 3:00pm Barack Obambi issued an ultimatum to Iran: Let inspectors in within two weeks, or else!:

President Obama delivered an ultimatum to Iran Thursday, saying it must allow international inspectors "unfettered access" to its recently disclosed nuclear facility at Qom in two weeks or face increased pressure from the international community.

That pressure would likely come in the form of tougher sanctions on the Iranian government and on Iranian firms operating internationally. Such measures could target the country's oil and gas sector, as well as firms that insure shipments to Iran.

That ultimatum didn't last 24 hours before the State Department began back pedaling. It's disgusting, and frankly he looks like a friggin' chimp, uh, I mean chump. From our glorious bastion of freedom and hope, the State Department:

A State Department spokesman on Friday signaled that the president's mandate that Iran has two weeks to permit inspections of its recently unveiled uranium refinement plant was not "written in stone."

"I don't think that there's a hard-and-fast deadline,"State Department spokesman Ian Kelly said during Friday's press briefing, after a reporter asked what the consequences of Iran's inaction might be.

Cover your ears mom. Are you fucking kidding me?! This is the new foreign policy of the United States of America? To issue harshly worded ultimatums about allowing inspectors into Iran within two weeks, and then turning around in less than a day and saying that it isn't "written in stone" and that there aren't any "hard-and-fast deadlines"? Never was there a position of such stupidity that emboldens our enemies so much while encouraging our allies so little.

Will the left in this country finally admit that they thrusted upon this nation a circus act for a government, anxious to control our lives and repugnantly reluctant to defend this country and stand up to our enemies while damned straight giddy over the prospect and opportunity to betray our allies.

Seriously? FYB

Confirmed: Barack Obama Has Small Testicles

2009-10-01T18:01:00.003-05:00

There was no doctors' report. No official White House statement on the matter. There was no press release and not even an annual presidential physical. But the world will note that yesterday, September 30, 2009, was the day that the answer to one of the world's greatest lingering questions was finally revealed: The leader of the free world has small balls. This came as a surprise to many of us on the right who have long suspected that the president had no testicles at all.

Yesterday, the White House announced that President Obama will take several weeks to review the nation's Afghanistan "strategy", a code word liberals use when they're really talking about "surrender". Yes, my friends, Barack Hussein Obama will now take several more weeks to review proposals his military advisers gave him more than a month ago. Since the requests for reinforcements began gathering dust on the president's desk, some 43 American troops have been killed waiting for commander-in-chief to respond to their commander's plea for aide.

Of course, there will be no aide, and Barack Obama is showing us what liberals meant as they shouted "What about Afghanistan?" during their protest of the Iraq war: "Why can't we surrender on two fronts instead of just one?" It is simply a fact that liberal Democrats were never truly interested in "finishing the job" in Afghanistan. Certainly they are no more interested in peace in Afghanistan than they were truly interested in freedom for the Iraqi people, a fraudulent support that quickly unraveled as they pretended to be shocked to learn that people die in wars.

The president's blinding ineptitude in managing this war is a result of inexperience, disinterest and weakness. He announced all the way back in March what he touted as a "new strategy" for Afghanistan, but as late as September was saying no new troops should be committed until we have the right strategy, a tacit admission that either a) his "new strategy" has completely failed or b) there never was a "new strategy" to begin with. Just words. My money's on option "b".

September 30, 2009 - Another American died in Afghanistan on Wednesday, the final day of September--and exactly one month after the top U.S. commander in Afghanistan sent a confidential war assessment to the Obama administration, warning that more forces are needed--soon.

On August 30, Gen. Stanley McChrystal sent Defense Secretary Robert Gates a war assessment in which he said more U.S. troops--and a new U.S. strategy--are needed if the U.S. is to defeat the insurgents in Afghanistan.

Since that Aug. 30 date, a total of 43 soldiers, sailors, airmen and Marines have died in a war that is now the subject of much discussion--and apparently some confusion--in Washington...

..In his confidential report, which was leaked to the Washington Post on Sept. 21, Gen. McChrystal warned that defeating the insurgents will not be possible if the United States fails to "gain the initiative and reverse insurgent momentum" over the next 12 months.

As CNSNews.com reported on Tuesday, Barack Obama campaigned on a promise to reinforce U.S. troops in Afghanistan, which he described as war we “have to win.”

As president – in March 2009 – Obama announced a “comprehensive new strategy” for Afghanistan: “I want the American people to understand that we have a clear and focused goal to disrupt, dismantle, and defeat Al Qaeda in Pakistan and Afghanistan and to prevent their return to either country in the future,” he said.

The same president who devised America's new "Bend Over, Western Europe foreign policy and is cheerily optimistic about our "constructive beginning" in talks with Iran is will not travel to Copenhagen to talk about the upcoming Olympic games, of which his hometown of Chicago is a competing bidder.

Nice, Barry. Absolutely brilliant. What a clean, bright and articulate black man. The president of the United States lacks the will power to stand up to our enemies and do what is necessary to win the wars in which we are currently engaged. Good choice, America.

Unemployment Rate Among Young Explodes to Over 52%; Young Obama Voters Learn Meaning of "You Reap What You Sow"

2009-09-27T18:03:00.006-05:00

Last year the media did not mince words in their race to announce that young voters were flocking to Obama. In fact, a google search I conducted while doing research for this entry yielded 210,000 results for the very specific search phrase "young voters flock to Obama". The link provided is to the first one on the list. It was hardly surprising after young people's ridiculous choice at the polls in 2006, when they helped usher in a new era of governmental horrors by voting in droves for Democrats thus handing them control of Congress.

Back in 2007 the new Democrat Congress passed a bill to raise the minimum wage, as promised. Businesses warned that this would make it more difficult to hire new employees, expand businesses and invest in research and development. They were politely told to "shut up" and to stop being so damned greedy. What do these stupid business owners think this is, anyway, capitalism? Sheesh! Well, now the young voters who have steadfastly supported liberals in the past two elections with the hopes of earning a higher minimum wage for flipping patties down at the Burger Barn are finding that the Burger Barn is no longer hiring. In fact, the entry level positions that young people depend upon in order to enter the workforce have all but vanished.

And so today there is a 52.2% unemployment rate among young people.

And worse, without a clear economic recovery plan aimed at creating entry-level jobs, the odds of many of these young adults -- aged 16 to 24, excluding students -- getting a job and moving out of their parents' houses are long. Young workers have been among the hardest hit during the current recession -- in which a total of 9.5 million jobs have been lost.

"It's an extremely dire situation in the short run," said Heidi Shierholz, an economist with the Washington-based Economic Policy Institute. "This group won't do as well as their parents unless the jobs situation changes."

Well, Heidi, unfortunately the "jobs situation" (that's what liberals call an unmitigated domestic policy disaster of their own doing...a "situaton") will not change anytime soon. The fact of the matter is that virtually no one, and I do mean no one, works for the minimum wage in this country anyway. Anytime a liberal on television starts asking you to imagine raising a family on the minimum wage, consider that only 1.5% (yes, the decimal really does go there) of all American workers actually earn the minimum wage. As the Heritage Foundation points out, when you exclude the number of workers who make minimum wage or less, but also earn tips, thus pushing them over the minimum wagee threshold, that number falls to 1.1%. Not 11%. 1.1%. The facts only get worse for liberals from there:

Most workers who earn the minimum wage or less fall into two categories: young workers, usually in school, and older workers who have left school. The majority of minimum wage-earners fall into the first category: 53 percent of those earning $5.15 or less per hour are between the ages of 16 and 24. [4] The remainder are 25 years of age or older...

...Even the vast majority of older adults who earn the minimum wage live above the poverty line. They have an average family income of $33,600 a year, well above the poverty line of $19,806 per year for a family of four. Most of them choose to work part-time, and a sizeable number are married. The average older minimum wage-earner simply does not fit the stereotype of a worker living on the edge of destitution.

Not that any of this matters. Even though the minimum wage was raised just two years ago, purportedly to help all these starving "families" who now can't find any job anywhere because we tried to "save" them, you can still hear screams from the left that the minimum wage is too low. The following articles were all written in the two years since the wage was raised from $5.15 to $7.25. I've translated the titles of the articles so they can be more easily understood to ordinary Americans:

Whaa!! Whaa!!
The Big Apple's Big Heart Ache
Boo Hoo!! Boooo Hooooo!
Blah Blah Blah living wage Blah Blah Blah
"Please Sir, I want some more."

That's a very small sample of the articles out there, although admittedly it's a far greater amount than the number of Americans earning minimum wage while supporting a family.

Now, if you're asking "Russ, when will it ever be good enough for these leftists boobs", then congratulations! You're a sane person and probably a certifiable patriot. But, if you're one of those asking "But, Russ, why doesn't the government force my employer to pay me even more" then I don't think you're exactly what the founders had in mind. Maybe you should move to Iran. The only rich people in Iran are in the government, and I hear the "average man on the street" just loves it there! I mean just look at them!

OK OK OK maybe that was a bad example, but I'm sure it's lovely otherwise! I hear on Fridays there are only 5 public stonings now instead of the traditional 8. So things are improving!

But what am I saying, I mean, nothing could ever compare to the miserable life of the minimum wage earner in America, most of whom are subjected to the humiliation of having a car, a home, a television, a refrigerator and other really terrible third world things like cell phones and computers. Don't you monsters have hearts! I mean we're talking about literally dozens of people here!

Seriously, though. Give me a break.

Now That's What I Call A Protest!

2009-09-25T18:46:00.003-05:00

h/t Hot Air

Hardly a week after Nancy Pelosi nearly wet her panties worrying that healthcare protests and townall meetings could turn violent (whaa! whaa!), a worry being fueled by the mainstream media and left bloggers. But in the midst of the G20 protests by liberal anarchists and anticapitalists, we see what a violent protest actually looks like.Nice. Via Hot Air:

Of course, the media didn’t bat an eye at the larger implications of the real violence from the same leftist crowd in Saint Paul, Minnesota, during the Republican convention, either. It seems that conservatives exercising free speech in a passionate but responsible manner freaks out the national media far more than leftists engaged in actual political violence.

As Ann Coulter explains, the most popular argument for liberals is to throw things, usually food, although in this case it appears to be a giant dumpster presumably filled with the garbage that is the liberal idea of what America should be.

Fired Up! Ready To Go!

2009-09-24T15:22:00.002-05:00

And they made fun of George Bush for being a former cheerleader. At least he never did this. Seriously, it's kind of embarrassing, Barry. Just stop it already.

Chris Dodd Facing Big Trouble In Connecticut

2009-09-24T14:29:00.003-05:00

Senate Democrat Leader Harry Reid's imminent demise notwithstanding, perhaps the most scrumptious victory Republicans have a more than good chance of having will be the defeat of Senator Chris Dodd of Connecticut, a man whose fifteen minutes are finally up. The most recent polls show that Dodd's Republican challenger, Congressman Rob Simmons, now leads in the race by an average of over 6 points. Indeed, the most recent Rasmussen poll shows Dodd down by 10 points, a staggering number to say the least. It seems the people of Connecticut are really unimpressed by the Senator's financial misdeeds and are looking for someone a little more, well, ethical to represent them in the august chamber that is the U.S. Senate.

Good luck to Rob Simmons. You can donate to his campaign here.

Republican Prospects In 2010: A Look At Key Indicators

2009-09-24T13:53:00.004-05:00

While ever mindful of the fact that polls can hardly be relied on as an indicator of election results that are still over a year away, I am also mindful of the fact that no one in the blogsphere today is not speculating on GOP prospects next year. And the reason for all of the speculation is because the prospects look so good right now for the Republican Party. If it looked as if next year were going to maintain the status quo, there would be no talk of GOP prospects because they would have none. My point is only that the chatter itself means the prospects are at least fair to midland.

In any case, let us look at some numbers that we can rely on because they require no sample or margin of error. Fundraising trends can tell us a more accurate story of how the electorat s feeling, and right now the Rupublican National Committee is awash in cash after experiencing a big bump in August:

Despite being in the minority in Congress, Republican campaign committees outraised Democrats by $1.7 million in August as they have aggressively collected political cash amid the rancorous debate over health care.
Republicans also held an edge over Democrats in the amount of money available, when counting debts, as both parties set the stage for the 2010 elections, in which more than three dozen competitive House and Senate seats are at stake...

...In the Senate, where Republicans are far outnumbered, their fundraising committee collected $3.1 million last month, compared to $2.2 million by the Democratic committee. It was the second month in a row that the Senate GOP committee outperformed Democrats — bringing its fundraising total for the year to $26.5 million, just $1 million less than the Democrats.

Brian Walsh, spokesman for the National Republican Senatorial Committee, said the committee has attracted more than 70,000 first-time donors this year as voters grew alarmed by President Obama's policies. "There are a lot of independents who may have voted for Obama who are now saying, 'This type of big government spending is not what we signed up for,' " he said.

This vindicates a recent Gallup poll showing that the GOP image is improving among voters. Take a look at that poll. The most interesting thing isn't the average voters' perception of the Republican party, but the perception of the party by party members themselves. In June support for the GOP among registered Republicans had fallen to 63%. Now it is back to 83% and will likely increase in the coming months.

Michael Barone, one of the best political analysts evah is now openly speculating about a GOP takeover of the House like we saw in 1994, when the Republicans wrestled a historical 52 seats from the Democrats in the House. As Barone points out, Real Clear Politics (a site all of you should be on everyday) currently shows Democrat leading Republicans by only 3 points on the generic ballot. But...:

But there’s a clear difference between the results shown by pollster Scott Rasmussen, who limits his surveys to those he determines to be likely voters, and other pollsters. Rasmussen currently shows Republicans leading 42%-38% and has had them ahead every week since the results he reported June 28—just about the time the House was passing the Waxman-Markey cap-and-trade bill by a 219-212 margin.

This is no small matter. Barone even points to the noted liberal bloggers on www.538.com who are also seemingly weary of a possible, and even probable Republican resergence in 2010.

Again, I would not normally place so heavy an emphasis on polls. But fundraising numbers do not lie. We will stay on top of those numbers and keep you posted.

Children Taught To Sing Obama's Praises At Elementary School In New Jersey

2009-09-24T12:03:00.003-05:00

Yes. This really happened. The original video was taken off of YouTube, but luckily our friends over at Hot Air dug it up. You really gotta read his piece on this. Here is the video:

Barack Hussein Obama
He said Red, Yellow, Black or White
All are equal in his sight
Mmm, mmm, mm!

Yes! Yes, my brothahssss!! Barack-uh. Is-uh Lawd-uh!! Gag me. Thanks also to Hot Air for pointing out that this scene is eerily reminiscent of this scene from one of the best films of all time, Cabaret!

Now Fatherland, Fatherland, show us the sign
Your children have waited to see
The morning will come
When the world is mine
Tomorrow belongs to me

I'm with the old man in the glasses. Oy vaht is vit deez crasy peepelz!?

Global Warming Doomsday Pushed Back For Now: North Pole's Ice Will Remain

2009-09-23T21:08:00.005-05:00

Well, no kiddin'! Last summer, National Geographic was doing it's part to hype global warming claims by insisting that the North Pole would cease to have ice. Lest their warnings be too vague, they titled their story "North Pole May Be Ice Free For First Time This Summer." Yes, they really said that. Sayeth the author:

Arctic warming has become so dramatic that the North Pole may melt this summer, report scientists studying the effects of climate change in the field.

"We're actually projecting this year that the North Pole may be free of ice for the first time [in history]," David Barber, of the University of Manitoba, told National Geographic News aboard the C.C.G.S. Amundsen, a Canadian research icebreaker...

..."I would say the ice in the vicinity of the North Pole is primed for melting, and an ice-free North Pole is a good possibility," Sheldon Drobot, a climatologist at the Colorado Center for Astrodynamics Research at the University of Colorado, said by email.

Now I know what you're all saying. "But Russ. Russ, Russ. But Russ! Aren't we going to have an ice free planet soon because of all this global warming?!" I dunno, are we? The following was published by the same organization, National Geographic, this week, about a year after they predicted the North Pole would have no ice. Seeing as how the North Pole did, in fact, have ice, they decided they had some 'splainin' to do:

This year's cooler-than-expected summer means the Arctic probably won't experience ice-free summers until 2030 or 2040, scientists say.

Some models had previously predicted that the Arctic could be ice free in summer by as soon as 2013, due to rising temperatures from global warming.

Now, I'm not saying that climate models are stupid, all I'm saying is that they're retarded, and they are the only basis for the untold amount of untruths being told by well-known and highly respected climatologists and meteorologists like, ya know, Al Gore. No, wait. Nevermind.

Barry to Allies: "Screw You"

2009-09-17T21:43:00.005-05:00

No longer content with destroying our nation on the domestic front vis a vis his healthcare reform proposals, President Obama today unleashed one helluva whopper today, essentially giving the finger to two American allies in eastern Europe. Demonstrating Democrats' staggering inability to forget anything that happened prior to this morning, our head of state and commander-in-chief decided to mark the 70th anniversary of the Soviet invasion of Poland by, well, giving Poland the finger. Our glorious leader, in all his wisdom, has decided to kill a planned missile defense system in that country as well as the Czech Republic.

All of this comes after increasingly hostile rhetoric from Moscow and after the Kremlin flatly refused to agree to sanctions againt Iran. Polish and Czech officials have confirmed America's betrayal:

A spokeswoman at the Polish Ministry of Defense also said the program had been suspended.

"This is catastrophic for Poland," said the spokeswoman, who declined to be named in line with ministry policy...

...Poland and the Czech Republic had based much of their future security policy on getting the missile defenses from the United States. The countries share deep concerns of a future military threat from the east -- namely, Russia -- and may now look for other defense assurances from their NATO allies.

"At the NATO summit in April, we adopted a resolution focusing on building a defense system against real, existing threats, i.e. short-range and medium-range missiles," Fischer said. "We expect that the United States will continue cooperating with the Czech Republic on concluding the relevant agreements on our mutual (research and development) and military collaboration, including the financing of specific projects."

By contrast, Russia may view the move as a diplomatic victory after complaining about the program consistently for years.

If you think the Poles are taking this lightly, think again. Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk (!) refused to take calls from Secretary of State Clinton. In case you're keeping score, Poland is one of the countries that stood steadfast with the United States in our war in Iraq, sending in troops along with our own.

While liberals squeal about George Bush's supposed squandering of our inernational trust, their crestened leader has now promptly betrayed two of our allies desperately needing assurances against growing Soviet aggression.

A disgrace of the first order.

FUB

The Republicans are SO mean! WAH

2009-09-17T12:25:00.004-05:00

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has become increasingly concerned with the "anti government rhetoric" regarding President Obama's health care plan.

First of all, allow me to clarify, it's not an anti-government stance. It is a stance that is based on minimal government intervention let alone a government run by representatives who are not respecting the wishes of their constituents or even pretending to (re-visit Baron Hill). We on the right, are fine with government, as long as they know what they're doing, which obviously is not the case here.

Pelosi goes on to state that it reminds her of the anti-gay sentiment that was seen in California during the 70's. "Pelosi's office did not immediately respond to a request for examples of contemporary statements that reminded the speaker of the rhetoric of 1970s San Francisco." Gee, I wonder why. Could it be because she's making a feeble attempt to demean the voices of opinion that are justifiably speaking out against the atrocities that going on in Washington?

Let's take a look at some of the deplorable comments that have been said about some of our friends on the Right:

Nobel Prize Winner Betty Williams 2007: "Right now, I could kill George Bush," she said. "No, I don't mean that. How could you nonviolently kill somebody? I would love to be able to do that." The irony here is folks is that she was speaking to a group of over a thousand people regarding peace talks and explaining how 'violence is a choice'.

Russell Brand @ the 2008 MTV Video Music Awards:
"But I know America to be a forward thinking country because otherwise why would you have let that retard and cowboy fella be president for eight years?"

Wanda Sykes @ the 2009 White House Correspondents Dinner:
“Rush Limbaugh — I hope the country fails. I hope his kidneys fail, how about that?“He needs a waterboarding, that’s what he needs.”

Pelosi goes on to say: "Our country is great because people can say what they think and they believe," "But I also think that they have to take responsibility for any incitement that they may cause."

When did any of those individuals from the aforementioned quotes take proper responsibility for their actions? Some of their comments were even laughed at by our current President.

Sorry Nancy, respect is a two way street. If you wanna get it, you have to give it.

Two options: Bad and Worse

2009-09-17T12:07:00.003-05:00

In attempts to distance herself from the plethora of ACORN scandals that have been leaked to the press recently, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had the following to say regarding the legislative action taken against the group: "I don't even know what they passed," Pelosi told The Post yesterday. "What did they do? They defunded it?"

Really? I thought you worked there...When your the Speaker of the House and the best option you can come up with to confront an organization like ACORN is to play dumb, you've got a lot of explaining to do. Clearly the left would rather look incompetent than admit they made a mistake. Thank goodness they've mastered that sacred art, lest they fear looking foolish to the American people.

Game Over: Harry Reid Opposes Healthcare Reform Bill

2009-09-16T19:22:00.004-05:00

It's the end. At least its the end of the "compromise" healthcare reform bill that was supposed to bring together Democrats and Republicans in a dizzying spectacle of bipartisanship not seen since Pearl Harbor. (I did not say "since 9/11" because I'm convinced a great multitude of Democrats were faking it). But, instead of that, not a single Republican is endorsing the bill and and now Harry Reid, the leader of the Senate Democra majority, says he will join his Democrat colleague, Senator Rockefeller, and oppose the legislation:

WASHINGTON - No sooner than the Senate Finance Committee's chairman released his long-awaited health care bill today than Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said it's not good enough for Nevada.

Reid is concerned about the cash-poor state's inability to boost Medicaid spending as would be required under the bill.

I seriously doubt Mr. Reid is concerned about the welfare of his state. More likely, he is growing increasingly concerned about polls showing that either of his potential Republican opponents would topple him in the general election next year. If that happens it would be the second time in as little as six years the Democratic leader of the Senate has been purged from office. It happened to Senate Majority Leader Tom "Puff" Daschle in 2004. It would be another stunning rebuke of Democrat leadership on this issue and shows us what a lightening rod it truly is.

Since the beginning of this debate, President Obama has chosen to let the liberal Democrat leaders of the Congress manage this charade and the American people are not impressed. When he finally tried to take control of the issue with a speech to the Joint Session he failed spectatularly, with members of his own party saying it has made it even more difficult to reach an agreement. The reason is not that the American people do not understand the complexities of the issue. That's a demeaning and elitist argument the leftists use to make themselves look important and smarter than "Joe Six-Pack". The fact is that a majority of Americans oppose these proposals because they understand them perfectly well. The debate has breached the discussion of just healthcare, and now envelopes a national discussion about the proper role of government in our lives and the social contract between the governing and the governed.

Finally, a debate that actually means something!

"Baucus Compromise" Falling Apart; Cuts Medicare; Key Dem Opposes

2009-09-16T13:33:00.004-05:00

Oh, dear reader, where do we begin? A few days ago, I reported that one of Maine's GOP Senators, Olympia Snowe, had advised the president that there would be "no way" a healthcare overhaul that included any form of government run healthcare would pass the Senate. I continue to doubt her loyalty to the party, which I believe to be demonstrably shaky at best, but it seems she's just not all that willing to risk her career to serve her White House masters. Yesterday she announcecd she would not support the bill coming out of the Finance Committee, otherwise known as the "Baucus Compromise". That means not a single Republican is supporting the so-called "compromise" which leaves one wondering what sort of compomise garners support from precisely zero from within the opposition's ranks. Trust, if even Olympia Snowe won't fall for it, it must be a whopper of a bill. And the Democrats panic proves, as Ed Morrissey notes, that the Democrats must not have the other 59 votes they need to pass the bill. That's because some Democrat senators do not like it, either.

This means that the Democrats will have to try reconciliation to get the bill through the Senate. Snowe’s rejection, however, hides another unpleasant fact that would have been apparent, which is that Democrats don’t have all of the other 59 votes needed, either. Other Democrats have already expressed unhappiness with individual mandates, IRS involvement, and the costs.

One of those Democrats is John D. Rockefeller (D-WV), who also announced yesterday he, too, will oppose the bill. Echoing the sentiments of Senator Snowe, Rockefeller said, "The way it is now, there's no way I can vote for the Senate package," and promised to have "many, many, many amendments" to add to the bill.

With Obamacare facing it's highest opposition ever, and only seven days after the messiah delivered his word to the masses on the Hill, perhaps the president could start changing his tune, starting with telling the truth. It turns out Joe Wilson, while admitting he acted inappropriately, was correct in calling the president a liar. His vindication coming when the Senate decided the fix the loophole in HR3200 that would have allowed illegal aliens to use universal health coverage. It also turns out the Baucus bill most certainly does cut Medicare, even after the president assured us in his Sermon on the Hill (get it?) that such claims were a myth.

But what does a raving racist lunatic like me know?

Say it ain't so Jimmy!

2009-09-16T09:56:00.003-05:00

As if his reputation wasn't sullied enough, former ~~disgrace~~ President Jimmy "(pea)Nuts" Carter, decided to weigh in on Rep. Joe Wilson's now infamous outburst.

Taking a play from the Al Sharpton Handbook, Carter states that racism was the cause of the outburst. Carter said the following to ABC News:

"I live in the South, and I've seen the South come a long way, and I've seen the rest of the country that shares the South's attitude toward minority groups at that time, particularly African-Americans."
"That racism inclination still exists, and I think it's bubbled up to the surface because of belief among many white people -- not just in the South but around the country -- that African-Americans are not qualified to lead this great country. It's an abominable circumstance, and it grieves me and concerns me very deeply."

Let's get one thing straight Jimmy, Rep. Wilson's remarks were not the result of racism. It was based on the fact that Joe Wilson, like many Americans, was tired of hearing Obama's lies. End of story. By bringing up the race issue, Carter is hoping to detract from the main point: Obama is misleading the American people with respects to this health care plan. Don't let this man fool you---it's still the same guy who had to have Reagan step in to clean up after his mess.

As if the racial bit wasn't enough Carter continued to open his mouth to see just how far his foot could go---"The president is not only the head of government, he is the head of state. And no matter who he is or how much we disagree with his policies, the president should be treated with respect" stated Carter.

It's funny how the left is all about respect and decorum now that Obama is in office. These are the same individuals who disrespected President Bush and cheered on the art galleries or films that glorified his hypothetical assassination. Where was the respect then? It was no where to be found. Again we had Reagan in office who refused to take off his suit jacket for fear of disrespecting the dignity of the office to Clinton having extra marital affairs inside the Oval Office. And yet somehow they still have the audacity to lecture us on respect.

Carter, do us all a favor and stick to your peanut farm.

Patrick Swayze Dead at 57

2009-09-14T20:08:00.004-05:00

Actor Patrick Swayze has died according to media reports. The star of Dirty Dancing and Ghost was one of my favorite Hollywood actors. Dead at 57. RIP.

It's Like Christmas In September: Senate Votes To End ACORN Funding

2009-09-14T19:30:00.004-05:00

After three days and three videos (two of which are here and here) showing ACORN employees at three different ACORN locations aiding a pimp and his whore evade taxes, commit bank fraud, break immigration laws, and place children in dire situations, the Senate has voted to terminate all federal funding for the liberal front group and Barack Obama's favorite organization. Finally, a bill I can support out of this Democrat hell hole of a Congress. This comes just one day after the Census Bureau announced it will no longer use ACORN as an assistant during the national census next year.

There were seven dissenting votes on the ammendment, sponsored by Mike Johanns (R-NE), all of which were liberal Democrats and self proclaimed socialists. They are the usual suspects:

- Dick Durbin (D-IL)
- Roland Burris (D-IL)
- Robert Casey (D-PA)
- Kirsten Gillibrand (D-NY)
- Patrick Leahy (D-VT)
- Bernie Sanders (I-VT)
- Sheldon Whitehouse (D-RI)

Hot Air is reporting that several Democrats voted against the amendment at the outset of the vote, only to change their minds. Many could be heard shouting, "I want to change my vote!" Among those who suddenly had a meeting with reason were (again all Democrats) Tom Udall, Frank Lautenberg and Herb Kohl.

Meanwhile, James O’Keefe and Hannah Giles, the two young patriots exposing this catastrophe, are being threatened with lawsuits from ACORN. James O'Keefe says, "Bring it on!":ACORN stood to gain billions (!) of dollars from the stimulus. Maybe we could use all of that money to buy Congressman Henry Waxman (D-CA) a new face. Poor guy.

Snowe Levies a Bombshell: She's Not That Liberal

2009-09-13T19:14:00.002-05:00

Maine Senator Olympia Snowe, one of the few Republicans you can count on to stab her own party in the back more than John McCain, has issued a dire warning to the White House. Snowe insists that there is "no way" a government run healthcare system will ever pass the Senate. Sayeth the thorn, “I’ve urged the president to take the public option off the table,” adding "it is universally opposed by Republicans," leaving many wondering if she was risking her "maverick" status at the New York Times by oddly including herself in the word "Republicans".

Remember, this is the same Olympia Snowe who supports a "trigger" that would put government run healthcare in place only if the private insurance industry doesn't "come through with the type of reforms that cover more uninsured people." So, perhaps the system is not "universally" oppposed by all Republicans, much less Snowe, a RINO if there ever was one. Either you support government run health care or you do not, Senator Snowe. On this issue there can be no compromise. Period. In any case, her insistence that there is "no way" this will pass and that she is begging and pleading with Barry to take it off the table is encouraging. Maybe the folks up in Maine have been making some phone calls.

Exit question: Is it just me or does Olympia Snowe look a lot like the witch from the movie Big Fish?

Joe Wilson Raises $700,000 since Friday; Also featuring other GOP heroes from 9/9/09

2009-09-11T20:33:00.009-05:00

During the president's speech on Wednesday, Congressman Joe Wilson stunned a nation already on tenterhooks trying to figure out what the hell Barry was talking about. After the president claimed that the healthcare bill would not cover illegal aliens, Mr. Wilson decided he had had enough. "You LIE!", became the shot heard 'round the world, and Congressman Wilson had fired it. Since then, the good congressman (pictured below shouting the president down) has apparently raised $700,000. Not bad.

But Joe wasn't the only Republican out there disgusted by what he heard. He was only the loudest. Congressman Louie Gohmert of Texas held a sign throughout the speech asking the president to reveal what mysterious plan he was speaking of, since it didn't seem to resemble any bill currently before Congress.Congressman John Shimkus of Illinois was so embarrased of just being in earshot of Barry's bellicose blather-fest that he walked out of the chamber.And when the president insisted that opponents of the current proposals offer solutions of their own, more than a handful of Republican representatives stood up waiving their own reform bills in the air.

But most of all I feel terrible for Congressman Wilson, who is being treated like common dirt (or as we call common dirt here at The Tusk, "an ACORN employee") for correctly calling the president a liar just moments after the president accused his opponents of lying. Indeed, right before Mr. Wilson let the cat out of the bag about Obambi's big fudge, the President had already accused his opponents of being dishonest and playing "games":

But what we have also seen in these last months is the same partisan spectacle that only hardens the disdain many Americans have toward their own government. Instead of honest debate, we have seen scare tactics. Some have dug into unyielding ideological camps that offer no hope of compromise. Too many have used this as an opportunity to score short-term political points, even if it robs the country of our opportunity to solve a long-term challenge. And out of this blizzard of charges and counter-charges, confusion has reigned.

Well the time for bickering is over. The time for games has passed.

The Democrats should really look deep within themselves before accusing anyone of scare tactics. Every two years during any national election we hear the same thing said to poor people ("Tax cuts for the rich" and "the poor get poorer"), and to old people ("They'll take away social security" and "They'll end Medicare") and to minorities ("Racists!"). It's really old. Boring, even.

ACORN Part Deux

2009-09-11T19:43:00.004-05:00

The vast right-wing conspiracy has struck again!!! Twice in little more than 24 hours, in fact. Gah-lee, the liberals must be absolutely quaking in their boots thinking of who the next victim of "gotcha journalism" will be. For now I'm content with ACORN, but some intense journalistic undercover type stuff could probably expose some absolutely hillarious things about other government laugh riots. Like AmeriCorps. Anyway.

In this segment of "Bend Over America: ACORN Loves Loose Women", we are taken to the ACORN headquarters in Washington, D.C., a headquarters brought to you by....YOURSELF! That's right, through your generous giving of mandatory taxes, you enable a bunch of filth to help sustain and create more filth! God bless America! In the following video, the same two folks who brought us the the first one are able to get completely different ACORN employees at a totally different site to do the precise thing the first ones did.

You see, folks, what this video shows is what some people in the law enforcement community call "evidence", evidence that ACORN is involved in a very elaborate scheme of helping criminals break the law. Let's review the laws broken:

1) tax evasion
2) bank fraud
3) falsifying a document for a taxing or other government agency
4) several immigration laws
5) child welfare laws
6) and in this case, probably campaign finance laws

It seems a stretch that these two brave undercover aspiring journalist were given precisely the same advice at two different locations. Both of the women in this video have also been fired. So, will there be anyone else out there who wants us to believe that the Baltimore incident was just an isolated instance of rogue employees? If so, maybe the next video via Glenn Beck will help you decide otherwise. This is the first in a 3 part series of videos. I encourage you to watch the others:When will there finally be an investigation of ACORN, an organization that has received $50,000,000 in taxpayer money so far and stands to receive billions more in surplus money? It's gotta stop. And you, America, are the only ones that can do that.

ACORN: Liberalism's Heart and Soul

2009-09-10T20:56:00.007-05:00

Already credibly accused of committing approximately a zillion counts of voter fraud leading to more than one indictment, it now appears that the liberal front group the Association of Community Oranizers for Reform Now, better known as ACORN (cute, huh?), has some much bigger problems on its hands. And by the looks of Sonja, the ACORN "tax specialist" in the following video, its a really, really, really big problem (that was a reference to her being so damned fat). In the film below, you will see ACORN, which runs on the taxpayers' dime, advising a 20 year old woman and her "pimp" how to 1) commit tax evasion, 2) open a brothel, 3) employ underage children, 4) who are illegal immigrants 5) to be used as sex slaves.Sonja, the "tax specialist", should be shot, killed, dug up and killed again. She knowingly aided two people (working undercover) set up an illegal business, commit tax evasion and sell minors into an underground world of child rape! What makes her behavior particularly abhorrent is her apparent lack of concern for the children. But then again, what would be expect from a liberal who no doubt believes these young children should have been aborted to begin with.

Ladies and gentlemen, this video is the perfect portrait of how liberalism infects the conscience of it's host, producing a creature devoid of naturual human aversions to basic evil things like child rape and child prostitution. Other basic human morals, such as opposition to a life of selling yourself in a brothel or a tendency to obey the law, become obscure unimportant side issues. What this liberal ACORN worker cares most about is helping people break the law and robbing the government in order to fund their illegal activity. At least this video shows us the truth about liberalism. They do not care about "the children". Nor do they care about women, particularly those who feel trapped in a life of prostitution and self degradation. These people destroy other people's lives, and they're doing for a living and on our tax dollars.

Since ACORN is a liberal activist group supported by President Obama, there will be no massive media investigation into their ideological and completely illegal activities. Indeed, they will never be forced to admit any wrong doing. Instead, their initial reaction was thus:

A spokesman for ACORN, Scott Levenson, when asked to comment on the videotape, said: “The portrayal is false and defamatory and an attempt at gotcha journalism. This film crew tried to pull this sham at other offices and failed. ACORN wants to see the full video before commenting further.”

Hm. That's an interesting line of logic. "It's all a lie! We won't comment further until we've seen the tape." Well, is it a lie or have you not seen the tape yet? Then to make things really confusing, they fired the two employees. Hey! I thought it was all a made-up lie?!

ACORN explained the firing saying that the employee's, "did not meet ACORN's standard of professionalism." Professionalism?! These two women were caught helping commit prostitution, organize a prostitution ring full of minors, commit tax evasion, commit bank fraud and break a dozen different immigration laws and ACORN is harping about "professionalism". Call me crazy, but I'd say this falls far outside the realm of "professionalism" and right into the fiery ring of "criminal activity". They must be talking about the fact that Tanja is showing off so much cleavage is absorbs virtually all light from the room, putting it in clear violation of at least my employer's dress code.

These people are frauds. They are liars. They are cheats. They are animals. They destroy the lives of women and children and then bathe in the glow of the supposed moral superiority. They are dispicable. Unforgivable. Criminal enablers. My friends, they are liberals. And so I regret to tell you this video does not surprise me in the least. Not even a little. Not even at all.

You Lie! Thank you, Congressman Wilson

2009-09-10T20:27:00.003-05:00

Besides breaking longstanding Congressional decorum, Congressman Joe Wilson is to be applauded for having the testicular fortitude to say what were we all thinking throughout the entirity of the president's speech last night. The video below is not presented so much to show you the spectacle, but because I think the "But how did you know!?" look on Pelosi's face is friggin' hillarious.In any case, Congressman Wilson has apologized for his remarks and has been roundly condemned by both Democrats and Republicans. But, not I. For while the networks and her Speakership will remain determined to focus on the act (shouting "you lie" at POTUS), I will focus instead on the assertion (that the President lied to the American people and to Congress about illegals being covered by his proposals).

The fact is that on two seperate occassions Congressional democrats had the opportunity to close the loophole in the bill that would allow illgals access to the coverage. While it is true that no explicit language in the proposals would grant taxpayer funded healthcare to illegal aliens, it is a fact that they would be given treatment under the program, that it would be illegal under the current law to deny treatment, and that the president knows all of this to be true. He lied to us anyway. If it were not true, why would congressional Democrats now be telling us they will move quickly to close the loophole exposed to us last night on live television by Congressman Joe Wilson?

Among three House committees to pass bills for health reform, only one expressly bans federal funding for proving health coverage to illegal immigrants.

"The Congressional Research Service has indicated that indeed the bills that are before Congress would include illegal aliens," Wilson said. "And I think this is wrong."

Indeed, the nonpartisan Congressional Research Service study found that the House health care bill does not restrict illegal immigrants from receiving health care coverage.

House Republican Minority Leader John Boehner amplified the complaint that without proof of citizenship, illegal immigrants could be insured.

"There were two opportunities for House Democrats to make clear that illegal immigrants wouldn't be covered by putting in requirements to show citizenships," he said. "Both of those amendments were, in fact, rejected."

In the Senate, Democrats in the so called "Gang of Six," a group of bipartisan senators on the Senate Finance Committee which is the last panel yet to release its bill, began moving quickly to close the loophole that Wilson helped bring greater attention to.

So which is it? Did Congressman Wilson unjustly call the president a liar or was the president actually lying? Or is it the third possibility, and the most probable one, that the president hasn't the slightest clue as to what is in these bills and just wants something passed through the Congress so he can sign it and not look like a big fat political loser.

John Cornyn And The NRSC Turn Up The Heat On Healthcare Debate

2009-09-09T17:15:00.002-05:00

Under the brilliant leadership of my own beloved senator, John Cornyn, the National Republican Senatorial Committee is going for a full court press against the Democrat leadership in the senate, painting them as being in complete disarray. It's not hard to do in the wake of the August recess, which saw Democrats struggling to stay on message...whatever the message is, exactly. Public option, or not? No one can be sure.

Can you blame John Cornyn and the NRSC for jumping all over the chaos within the Democrat party on this issue? In the words of Rahm Emmanuel, the president's chief of staff, "You should never let a good crisis go to waste." Tehehehehe

Did Obama Know About Release of Terrorist?

2009-09-07T00:56:00.003-05:00

Our readers, being the very informed and responsble citizens that they are, are well aware of the release of one Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi, "the only individual convicted in connection with the bombing of Pan Am Flight 103 in 1988. The event which killed 270 people, including all those on board, is now one of the most spoken of terrorist events in recent memory.

On August 20, the British government released him on "compassionate grounds." Megrahi has terminal prostate cancer. Boo-hoo.

The release of convicted terrorist Megrahi led the White House to issue a statement expressing "deep regret" for his release, explaining that it "expressed repeatedly to officials of the Government of the United Kingdom and to Scottish authorities, we continue to believe that Megrahi should serve out his sentence in Scotland." After crowds in his home country (predictably) greeted him as a national hero, the White House pretended to be surprised calling the reaction of Libyan citizens "outrageous and disgusting." However, those of us who remember this event from Iraq, circa 2005, in which U.S. contractors' bodies were burned alive and mutilated before being strung up from a bridge by "peace loving" Musilms, where not so surprised by the reaction of Libyans to the release of a terrorist.

All the same, though, it now appears that Barack Obama new all along that the release of Mr. al-Magrahi was imminent. Via Astute Bloggers:

British officials claim Mr Obama and Mrs Clinton were kept informed at all stages of discussions concerning Megrahi’s return

the officials say the Americans spoke out because they were taken aback by the row over Megrahi’s release, not because they did not know it was about to happen.

‘The US was kept fully in touch about everything that was going on with regard to Britain’s discussions with Libya in recent years and about Megrahi,’ said the Whitehall aide.

‘We would never do anything about Lockerbie without discussing it with the US. It is disingenuous of them to act as though Megrahi’s return was out of the blue.

'They knew about our prisoner transfer agreement with Libya and they knew that the Scots were considering Megrahi’s case.’

Now, I'm not saying I'm surprised that our bleeding-heart of a president is a lying pantywaste who can't even stand up to the Scots on a simple prisoner release, much less our enemies. We've known B.O. is a chump; sheep in wolves clothing, if you will. What is absolutely intolerable is the insulting of our intellect, to suggest that he was surprised by the release of Magrahi. In fact, some might call that suggestion "disingenuous". According to unnamed "British officials" who are fed up with the White House's moral indignation on this issue, Obama and Clinton only spoke out because they were so surprised that so many people were upset, and "not because they did not know it was about to happen."

This is the definition of liberal elitism, the inability to grasp what us backwoods hicks might have to say about the release of a convicted killer. We have seen this same "deer in the headlights" look from the administration with their healthcare proposals, their handling of the bailouts and the economy. "What?! We were sure you'd love a government virtual takeover of the car industry. You mean you didn't want an unemployment rate of nearly 10%? How could you oppose the release of terrorist? Didn't you know he has prostate cancer?" And on and on it goes.

Allahpundit puts it best.

He keeps his mouth shut until a critical mass of public outrage is reached, then he creeps behind the podium and offers tepid denunciations. Way to lead, champ.

Democrat Baron Hill Suddenly Caught in a "Compromising Position" on YouTube

2009-09-03T22:20:00.003-05:00

Needless to say, afte this video floats around a bit, Baron Hill will not be running "his" congressional office much longer. Nor will he be able to congratulate himself about what a benefocent leader he is for allowing his constituents to attend "his" townhall meetings. Seriously, guys it's just too good to be true.
As our friends over a Hot Air point at, it's getting to the point where there are just "Too many Democratic congressmen behaving like jackasses for bloggers to keep up anymore". Alas, we do our duty, bravely showing Democrat blow hards in very, very compromising positions.

This is how they see you, America. You work for them and you owe them a lot, and I mean a lot of respect.

The Importance of Our Politics

2009-09-03T21:23:00.005-05:00

I hear far too often from "moderates" and "independents" that politics is useless, or that our public discourse is too hardened by politics. They claim to hate partisanship and seem to believe that no matter what, they will never be heard.

News flash: You're never heard because you never participate in our politics. Or, perhaps more correctly, you were never heard until now. Everyday more and more Americans are finally realizing that anything having to do with public policy, foreign relations and an entire slew of othe issues is politics, and in any discussion which requires the utterance of opinion like-minded people will group. We call thes groups political parties, and they use their collective influence to protect and enforce what they believe is important to them. This is civics 101. The absence of moderates and "independents" from the process for literally years while simultaneously whining about "partisanship", reliably refusing to commit to anything or anyone, is what led to the election of a Democrat controlled Congress and a virtually tone deaf president. Now, in droves they throw up their hands and cry foul.

After the election of Barack Obama last year, I wrote a letter to a friend of mine regarding the massive Democrat sweep. "America has elected their liberal Democrat government, and now they're going to get it," I told him. And indeed they have. They just don't like what they see. We see trillion dollar deficits, government mandated health care on the horizon, government seizure of private business disguised as "bailouts". We even finally got to see liberals' idea of a "middle class tax cut"; haven't you noticed the extra $12 a week? Most of all we've been able to see how the elected officials of the self proclaimed "party of the people" react to everyday Americans. The comman man has been called a brown shirt and "astroturf" by Democats and the liberal Speaker of the House.

Now over half of America believes the liberal Democrats they elected are...too liberal! It's kind of like orderig the baked duck and then complaining that it tastes "too gamey". What exactly did you expect? And besides, what does "too liberal" mean? Is there even such a thing as "just the right amount" of liberal? I ask you, is there such a thing as "just the right amount" of aborted babies? Or "just the right amount" of released criminals? How about "just the right amount" of confiscated or outlawed guns? Or "just the right amount" of coddling to America's enemies? Or just the...you get the point. Vote conservative. Vote Republican.

This is politics. It's not pretty and it's not for pussies. Pick a party or start your own and start fighting for what you believe in. This country has little use for sniffling bench sitters.

Move Over Charlie

2009-09-03T17:55:00.003-05:00

Chairman of the Ways and Means Committee Rep. Charlie Rangel (D-NY) managed to irritate this conservative twice today....granted it's not a difficult thing to do, but still.

Earlier Rangel threw down the race card while commenting on the ObamaCare bill stating: "Why do black people have to bargain for what is theirs? Why do we have to wait for the right to vote? Why can't we get what God has given us? And that is the right to live as human beings and not negotiate with white southerners and not court the votes. Just do the right thing," Rangel said. Rangel is absolutely right, it is about doing the right thing. Which is exactly why the majority of Americans are opposed to the bill. When in doubt, play the race card to garner support. This is more of the same typical liberal rhetoric that we can expect from the Al Sharptons, Sonia Sotomayors , and Charlie Rangels of the world...if things don't go your way throw in a race or gender card and you're sure to get your way! As a Hispanic female, their behavior is both disgusting and irritating.

The Washington Post later went on to report the following on Rangel:

Mr. Rangel's amended financial disclosure form, which exposes omissions from his
2002 through 2006 records, is a treasure trove of outrage. He neglected to
report a checking account with the Congressional Federal Credit Union and one
with Merrill Lynch, each valued between $250,000 and $500,000; the tens of
thousands of dollars he's earning from dividends from a number of mutual funds
and stocks; and the money made from the sale of a Harlem townhouse. As a result,
Mr. Rangel's reported net worth doubled, from between $516,015 and $1,316,000 to
between $1,028,024 and $2,495,000.

This is the exact type of character we can expect from the gentleman (and I am using the term very loosely) who runs the Ways and Means Committee. Fabulous.

Mitt Romney 2012?

2009-09-02T23:35:00.004-05:00

All of you former Right Up Front readers know of my undying affection and unyielding loyalty to Mitt Romney. Indeed, he is my first choice for the nomination in 2012. Now it looks like the Stormin' Mormon may be testing the waters for an encore run at the GOP knod. Politico's Jonathan Martin has the details.

After a few stops in some early primary states and lavish fundraiser at a "trendy" Washington eatery, there are many reasons for any former Romney fan to be hopeful. And who better to go up against a now-obviously undisciplined current White House resident than the uber-disciplined, results oriented former businessman and governor?

Lucky for those of us squarely in the Mitt camp, it appears we're in good company. In March, he won the CPAC presidential preference straw poll for the third year in a row. He is consistantly among the top Republicans in poll after poll, including this one. And this one. He competes the best among the other GOP potentials against Barack Obama in that poll, and even ties the president at 45% in this one. Granted, dear readers, it is far, far, far too early to be vesting any weight in these polls. Not because they are not accurate. But because the situation right now will absolutely not exist in 3 years when we choose our (wo)man.

Or will it?

Thank you Captain Obvious

2009-09-02T10:11:00.003-05:00

Writer for the Washington Post Dan Balz writes After a Bruising August, Time for Obama Team to Regroup. To coin a popular phrase "duh". I suspect Mr. Balz will eventually do a follow up article letting us know that the world is indeed not flat.

Obama won the votes of the American people based on a ~~soundbite~~ platform of change. What TeamObama didn't anticipate is the American people pounding on the doors of legislators looking to collect. Nearly every Gallup Poll done within the last few weeks shows Obama's approval rating falling at a rate that should make Rahm Emmanuel put down his fishing pole and reach for the James Carville playbook.

Obama currently faces opposition from both sides of the aisle with former sychophants like Nancy Pelosi challenging the President to return to his "more liberal" roots, especially in the health care reform arena. With the White House officially stating that the public health care options is now off the table, he is receiving heavy criticism from his very insistent base. "They are now threatening to turn the fight for retaining a public option in the bill into a crusade" states Blaz. With all this discontent from his legislative base, the White House staffers would still have the American public believe that their is a great level of cohesion among the left. It's no suprise his approval rating is falling, he can't even get his cronies on the same page.

If the townhalls were any indication of the level of support regarding the public health care option, you'd think the White House would go back to the drawing board rather than take leave for a vay-cay.

"Former Senate majority leader Bob Dole and former Democratic senator Bill Bradley weighed in with advice to the president over the weekend. Bradley said a grand bargain is still possible, but only if Obama is prepared to put tort reform on the table as an enticement to attract Republican support for universal coverage." Tort reform? I'm sure the Harvard Law grad who spent the majority of his career practicing law would be excited about this possible option...oh wait, no that's right Obama is merely a career politician. Whew. That would've been a toughie.

Granted, Obama does not have to worry about elections until 2012, the legislators who are headed back to Washington have the 2010 elections to worry about. After visiting with their irrate constituents they are far less inclined to be the unified "yes men" they once were, thus will be considerably more difficult to work with than they were prior to the August break.

And as such, I'll sit back and watch their return with a smug grin as they attempt to work out the health care issue.

Anyone got any popcorn?

Because I Said So

2009-09-01T09:50:00.004-05:00

San Antonio health officials, along with the help of the of our beloved Major Julian Castro, and the San Antonio Restaurant Association have decided to change the way food is consumed in this city.

They are targeting local eateries and encouraging (read: threatening) them to offer healthier meal options, lest the restaurant be faced with future regulations or fines for non-compliance. The argue that the city is "getting heavier" and this is a viable options to combat that. Lest we succumb to the ravages of obesity, diabetes, and heart disease.

Now, don't get me wrong. I'm all for healthier options, but as it stands, they are out there already. If I've got an hour for lunch and I want to eat something nutritious, my first instinct is not to go to McDonalds (or for all you Texans Whataburger). Even if I do, for the sake of the argument, most fast food establishments and local eateries have healthier options already soup/salads etc. It's about knowing the facts behind what you eat and the willingness to pass up chips and salsa or the enchilada plate for a salad with light ranch. Either way, that is the choice of the patron not the restaurant or the government.

And since when did it become okay for government to attempt to regulate what restaurants serve? Talk about government intervention in the every day lives of citizens. As both a conservative AND a San Antonian I am beyond appalled and disgusted by this blatant display of governmental bullying and preying on the local small businesses in order to appear to take a stand on a liberal political issue. And please note, I stated appalled, not surprised. After all, it is Julian Castro who is governing our local sector. How much can you really expect from twin brother's who were raised on the 'south side' of San Antonio by a mother who was the founding member of La Raza Unida in SA, but yet in all her political indoctrination, she failed to teach her boys Spanish. So much for the "united race". Way to go Rosie.

The country has gone so far left, that it is now acceptable to tolerate this type of behavior from our representatives...and in my own beloved Red State no less!

A big Texas Howdy

2009-08-31T17:28:00.002-05:00

For those of you who sporadically kept up with Right Up Front, you'll be glad to know that both Hargraves and I have come back to further the conservative agenda via blogposts. Exciting, is it not?

The main difference between this blog and the last one is that we will be focusing on current events from a 'minority' stand point while simultaneously reaffirming our conservative roots. As young, female, Hispanic, legal immigrant, Republican, I often try to "out minority" Russ in my conservative opinions. He has a few minority cards up his sleeve, but I end up usually winning that battle in the end.

I am currently studying for my LSATs, and seeing as I'm not planning on Sonia Sotomayor-ing my way into law school --- that requires actual studying. I plan on getting into law school based on merit rather than gender or ethnic background. What a novel concept huh? Consider this my introductory post, pending new and further developments in the political word --- (Translation: Wait for the liblabs to do something infuriating to cause me to post again shortly).

Until then thanks for stopping by and on behalf of all the contributors, we hope you'll stop by again soon!

Liberals Throw Hands Up In Dismay: "Why Doesn't America Like Barack Anymore?"

2009-08-30T18:48:00.004-05:00

Writing on Commentary's blog, Jennifer Rubin is wondering why Mr. Obama isn't the beloved figure he used to be less than a year ago and is offering liberals a bit of advice on how to redeem the presient's reputation. You see, no longer able to ignore the plummeting popularity of their beloved messiah, our liberal brethren have now segwayed into a flabbergasted state of frustration as they struggle to understand what it is the common man wants from their virtually perfect president. Attributing his nearly 20 point free fall in less than a year to his (as of yet unseen) unparalelled work ethic, former Gore campaign manager Donna Brazille wonders out loud if "the problem is that the president is doing too much and stressing everyone out..."

Yes, that's it! He's just such a gosh darn go-getter that America has grown worried about...well, who cares just shut up, get in line, and for God's sake don't tell the emperor he doesn't have any clothes on! Brazille has also suggested that if only Obama could "get back to the bipartisan appeal that worked during the campaign" then maybe, just maybe he wouldn't be seen as such a hack. But therein, lies the problem. What liberals fail to see is that the "bipartisan appeal" was only that, an appeal. It was never true. It was never meant to be, at least not by the campaign spokesman and Obama himself who repeated the mantra over and over and over and over and over again. But repeatedly chanting "Hope and Change" at a campaign rally doesn't make the president anymore bipartisan than repeatedly shouting "Yes, we can" makes poor people less dependent on the government.

Not willing to concede that their unpopularity might have somthing to do with their ridiculous policy proposals, they instead insist that the party only needs a little bit of a face lift. Lucky for them, Ted Kennedy died. And not a moment too soon! If liberals didn't have the death of a major political player within their ranks to distract everyone then the public might still be talking about the socialization of America being propelled though Congress. And we can't have that. And so we are subjected to disgusting orations by Neal Gabler in the LA Times blathering on about "Ted Kennedy, America's conscience." Yes, that was actually the title of his column today. As if the conscience of America would allow it to leave the death of a young woman in our own car unreported for ten hours. Boy, you really gotta hand it to that Neal Gabler fella. He's really got his finger on the pulse of America, doesn't he?

Unfortunately for the left in this country, Americans will not be swayed by the political grandstanding witnessed at the Kennedy press confere...oh, I mean funeral. We don't want their health care, we don't want their taxes and we don't want their bailouts. And don't even get me started on things like gun control, abortion or foreign affairs. I guess we can just drive off the side of that bridge when we get to it, eh Neal?

Kennedy's Grandson Recruited For Political Exploitation

2009-08-29T20:52:00.003-05:00

It could have, should have and indeed was predicted that the death of Senator Kennedy would be exploited by the left for political gains in the health care debate. Little did we know that they would exploit his own grandson to exploit his own death. The indecency of the left truly knows no bounds, ladies and gentlemen. I give you the poor lad too young to know any better:Yes, that really happened.

Gateway Pundit and Hot Air are following the story closely with details of the left saying it's ok to pray for nationalized medicine because Jesus would have wanted it. You can read all about that there. Instead I'd like to focus on the exploitation of a child, which liberals presumably oppose, for nothing more than what will ultimately be a few minutes of attention in the hopes that America will fall to their knees in exultation of a man credibly accused of negligent homicide and get on the band wagon to support one of the left's biggest raison d'etres, the complete and utter control of one sixth of the American economy by people like...well, by people like the man credibly accused of negligent homicide.

This is the modern day Democrat party. It is a sad thing to witness, but the truth is this: The liberals of today lack anything close to resembling what anyone of us would consider integrity, decency, morals or humanity. This explains their inhuman urge to murder the unborn, their opposition to the overthrow of tyrannical dictators who have murdered millions, their quasi-support for Communist regimes worldwide that murdered tens of millions more and their insistence that humans abandon their nature and reduce themselves to de facto slavery at the hands of a liberal government.

This goes far beyond what we see on the surface. In this charade of Kennedy plaudits we see the heart and soul of the Democrat party. It is a party bent on pushing through their far left ideological agenda even if it means exploiting a funeral or the innocence of a child.

Ted Kennedy's Humanity?

2009-08-29T04:07:00.005-05:00

Famed author Joyce Carol Oates is now trying her hand at the moral relativism of the left, attempting to gloss over the actions of a younger Senator Kennedy many Americans never knew. In case America wasn't getting the picture, that liberals really do not see anything morally objectionable in Uncle Teddy's actions (and lack of action) at Chappaquiddick in 1969 that left a woman dead, E.J. Dionne did his part with his aptly titled article "Ted Kennedy's Humanity".

You really must forgive me, dear reader, but I will not be participating in the maddening, hysterical race to hoist Ted Kennedy upon the altar of political heroism. Leaving a young woman to drown in his car at the bottom of a lake while never - never - acknowledging the inherent inhumanity of his actions that night deserves neither praise nor honor. And he shall be receiving none from The Tusk.

Welcome To The Tusk

2009-08-29T03:58:00.003-05:00

Welcome to The Tusk, your home for conservative commentary on today's top stories from a team of ridiculously conservative patriots, just like you! Please be patient while we get our blog up and running. Trust me, you'll love this place!