Thursday, September 30, 2010


President BO just can't seem to get things right.

He establishes Mexico as a country way before it was one.

He turns a country's flag upside down.

Now he can't even properly pronounce the name of the candidate he is supposed to be supporting.

It just goes on and on and on!

George Bush was ridiculed for his supposed gaffs, but President BO gets a pass...especially from liberals, who proclaim all of his mistakes of no import.

Can we please at least try to be professional Mr. President?

I guess the best we can hope for is the same old amateur.

Wednesday, September 29, 2010


Thanks to Z at GeeeeeZ for calling attention to this video.

Tuesday, September 28, 2010


It' s the way liberals think.

They can't help it.

It's some kind of affliction; either a disease or a learned response.

The liberal is just fine with the thought process that says: We proposed a $100,00.00 increase to such-and-such, settled for an $80,000.00 increase and that represents a $20,000.00 reduction.
Hint: It's not a reduction! It's an increase! Just not as big an increase as originally proposed.

What is wrong with them?

They do the same thing when talking about taxes.

President BO recently said of Republicans: "They proposed $4 trillion of tax cuts..."

That is a deliberate lie. (Either that or a continuation of the above mentioned disease.)

The Republicans stated that they did not want to increase taxes by $4 trillion as the Democrats had proposed.


Here is the full text that included President BO's convoluted reasoning:

"What I’m seeing out of the Republican leadership over the last several years has been a set of policies that are just irresponsible. And we saw in their ‘Pledge to America’ a similar set of irresponsible policies. They say they want to balance the budget. They proposed $4 trillion of tax cuts and $16 billion in spending cuts, and then they say we are going to somehow magically balance the budget. That’s not a serious approach. So the question for voters over the next five weeks is, who is putting forward policies that have a chance to move our country forward so that our schools have improved, so that we have a world class infrastructure, so that we’re serious about helping small business, we’re serious about getting a handle on our spending and who’s just engaging in rhetoric. And I think that if that debate is taking place over the next 5 weeks, we are going to do just fine."

Republicans have not proposed $4 trillion in tax cuts; they have opposed $4 trillion in tax hikes that will take place absent Congressional action.

Even if you are a liberal, aren't you able to know the difference between cutting something and a suggestion to not implement it to begin with?

Can you really not tell the difference?

Are you that shallow and empty-headed?

What on earth were you doing during math classes at your government school?

I mean...this is really surreal!

Monday, September 27, 2010


President BO and his liberal minions like to change the meanings of words.

One example, of course, is “marriage.”

For umpteen hundred years (by my exact count), “marriage” has meant the union of a man and woman. Now it can mean the “union” of two men or two women. That means we need another word to define the union of a man and a woman, but one does not seem to be forthcoming.

(Just because you call something something, doesn't mean that's what it is. For instance: I can call my 1995 Saturn SL2 a 2010 Lincoln Town car all I want to, it will still be a 1995 Saturn SL2.)

Another example is “priority.”

“Priority” is from a late 14th century Old French word: “priorite,” which is from the Latin: “prioritatem” and “prior,” meaning "fact or condition of being prior, or first in line."

Now, if you’re standing in line at the grocery store, there can only be ONE first in line. Trust me, if you try to make it two “first in line” by joining with the person already first in line, there is going to be trouble.

But “Priority” means something completely different to liberals in general and President BO in particular.

Consider these:

It was on January 20, 2009 that the newly elected president declared that the struggling U.S. economy would be his number one priority. (Never mind that it is linguistically impossible to have a “number two priority.”)

On February 11, 2009, President BO proclaimed that consumer protection was his “top priority.”

On May 1, 2009, it was vaccinations against the H1N1 virus.

Reviving the job market was his avowed top priority on January 19, 2010.

Then, on February 1, 2010, student loan reform rose to the top.

Said President BO: “The day that the rig collapsed and fell to the bottom of the ocean, I had my team in the Oval Office that first day. This has been our highest priority since this crisis occurred.”

He has more "top priorities" than Carter had little liver pills. (You have to be of a certain generation, or very smart, to understand that allusion.)

Funny thing, though. Of all of his "top priorities," not a one has been accomplished.

(Unless you want to count the oil spill crisis, which was solved by its perpetrater, BP, not by President BO.)

So, of all of his "top priorities," which one (or ones) is really his "top priority?"

Sunday, September 26, 2010


A blogger who calls himself Nameless Cynic commented on my "Pretend You're A School Kid, Which Guy Would You Relate To?" post.

Seemingly, some comment of his failed to appear and NC has accused me of deleting it (or the case may be).

First of all, I have NEVER deleted one of his comments...yet.

Secondly, if I had, so what? It's my blog and I do what I want on it, just as he does what he wants on his. (But I did NOT delete his comment in this, or any other instance...yet).

Thirdly, in case you did not know it, I have some rules of engagement on this blog. They are clearly listed in the right panel.

Look, if I routinely allow the kookie leftist prattle of people like Xavier Onasis and Shaw Kenawe, why would I discriminate against someone I've never heard from before (as far as I can remember)?

Old Namless Cynic made some subsequent comments, in which he castigates both me and Susannah. I didn't delete them...why would I have deleted the other. Answer: I did not.

Just so you'll know, I allow ("welcome" is too strong a word) people of different persuasions to comment on this blog. I would prefer that they engage in valid debate, but most of them do not have the intelligence to do so...they just say "liar" and call names.

I served as captain of my debate team at Stetson University umpteen years ago, and I know what debate is. That ain't it.

I also summarily delete comments containing profanity and vulgarity 'cause that's what I do. I figure if a person is not intelligent enough to speak English without swearing, he/she does not deserve space on my blog. I've even deleted comments from conservatives whose writing contained curses.

If you don't like that, tough cookies. Go somewhere else.

See, Amendment one of the Constitution does not guarantee you free speech anywhere and everywhere. It guarantees that the government cannot make a law that restricts your free speech. It does NOT say that I can't make one on my blog.

So I have made one.

Nameless Cynic, I hereby invite you to re-post your supposedly deleted comment(s) if you wish.
Otherwise, shut up and stop complaining. Say what you have to say and get on with it.

Friday, September 24, 2010


Look...I'm a dyed-in-the-wool, hard core, fiscal and social conservative Constitutionalist.

Believing that an open mind is a thing so easily overdone that it becomes a sieve, containing nothing at all, I am narrow-minded to the extreme about certain things, that among them are life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness (which phrase I admittedly stole from the D of I).

Liberals regularly plaster their brand of what masquerades as logic in the comments sections of my posts to no avail. They will NEVER convince me that they can think their way out of a wet paper sack, let alone prove to me that they are right about anything.

Their technique is to castigate the person, rather than to actually debate issues. In fact, their idea of debate is to force you by whatever means to agree with them.

Having said all of that, let me now address those Republicans who are proud of themselves for coming up with the so-called "Pledge to America."

I have a problem with it.

"What is that problem?"

I am so glad you asked.

The trouble is that mainstream Republicans have demonstrated through the language of the "Pledge..." that they have not learned the lessons of the past few years.

Part of it reads: "...we will roll back government spending to pre-stimulus, pre-bailout levels, saving us at least $100 billion in the first year alone..."

Hey! I'm all for rolling back spending.

But "...pre-stimulus, pre-bailout..." will only put us back where we were when this mess began to collapse around us.

Is that what they think we want?

I won't go into all the other issues I have with the PTA (not the school organization...although I have my problems with that as well). It would be too long for anybody, especially liberals, to read.

What really bugs me is that these Republicans are sounding like they are timidly testing the political waters...still afraid to stand up and shout about the evil policies of government hand-outs to the undeserving, over abundant bureaucracies charged with great spending and producing nothing at all, etc., etc., etc.

They are too stupid (or timid) to wake up to the message of the selection of an O’Donnell over their good buddy and long-time "friend" Castle.

They are still uneasy about the constant grass roots message of the Tea Party.

To them all I shout at the top of my lungs: WAKE UP YOU LILLY-LIVERED, YELLOW-BELLIED SAPSUCKERS!



Unite this country! Start meting out real justice! Give us peace in our neighborhoods! Defend us against ALL enemies...even Islamics! Promote the good of the people! Make absolutely certain that our individual liberties, and those of our descendants, are not infringed upon by our government in the name of "the good of all!"

Come on! Get with it!

What you'll find is that you will be imminently electable and unbeatable.

Anything less will be very costly to you.

Thursday, September 23, 2010


Liberals keep accosting me about my "hatred" of President BO, and my claim that he is absolutely unqualified for the job, having never held any significant position of leadership in any organization except "Community Organizer."

I don't hate President BO.

I absolutely hate his leadership and his policies, proposed and implemented.

I have also called him a narcissist, to which liberals object, but which he keeps demonstrating over, and over, and over and over again (as documented on this very blog many times).

Here is yet another.

Notice that when this questioner, Velma Hart, begins, President BO assumes she is about to complain about having to defend HIM from all of the criticism against HIM.

He rolls his head back and laughs, as though it is unthinkable that anyone would have the nerve to criticize HIM, and that HE completely understands where she's coming from.

Suddenly it becomes apparent that she is not talking about others criticizing HIM, it is she, herself, who has been disappointed by HIS failure to have made significant progress toward helping the middle class of America.

Presidend BO's demeanor immediately changes to that stern, arrogant, Lecturer-in-Chief attitude he so often exhibits.

If you watch the entire exchange, you hear HIM follow the question with HIS barrage of excuses and once again blaming circumstances (read: Bush), for his own short comings.

It turns out, as illustrated in a fundraising dinner for the DNC in the Pyramid Club , that what President BO really wants is for people to just shut up and leave HIM alone.

Whatever else he may be, it is becoming more apparent every day that President BO is a rank amateur, sophomoric, and a narcissist.

If you liberals will remove your rose colored blinders, you will see it, too.

Wednesday, September 22, 2010


On Saturday, September 18, 2010 I posted a video of President BO as he deliberately misquoted the Declaration of Independence.

Turns out that our illustrious president, the smartest man to hold that office in the history of the universe, a Harvard Law School graduate and former head of the Harvard Law Review, continues to demonstrate his lack of knowledge and understanding of history.

In his remarks, he tells us that "...long before America was even an idea..." we shared this great land with many people, including Mexicans.

He not only mentioned Mexicans, he leaned on the word...emphasizing it.

Then he waited for applause to die before continuing.

Only he was wrong.

Long before America was even an idea, Mexico did not exist.

Mexico did not exist until 1821.

Your amateur president strikes again.

In case you missed the video and think I'm just making this up because of my hatred of President BO, here it is again (for those of you educated in government schools, fear not. It is short).

Tuesday, September 21, 2010


Which one seems most interested in himself?

Which one seems most interested in relating to the kids?

Which one needs more paraphernalia?

Which one needs less?

Which one seems more interested in his own importance?

Which one looks like he might feel comfortable putting an arm around a kid and speaking directly with him?

Which one seems aloof and separated?

Which one seems warm and friendly?

Which one seems cold and distant?

Which one do you think the kids liked best?

I worked with kids for over 40 years. I think I know the answers to all of the above questions.

ADDENDUM: Here is a photo of President BO's interaction with the students. Notice the expressions on most of the kids' faces. Booorrrrriiiinnnggg!

Monday, September 20, 2010


So, somebody explain to me why the same plan is instituted so many times, each one a little different, and each one never having actually been implemented.

February 6, 2009: "But broadly speaking, the package is the right size, it has the right scope and it has the right priorities: To create 3 to 4 million jobs and to do it in a way that lays the groundwork for long term growth, by fixing our schools; modernizing health care to lower costs;repairing our roads, bridges, levees, and other vital infrastructure; move us toward energy independence."

February 17, 2009: "Starting today, our administration will be working day and night to provide more aid for the unemployed, create immediate jobs building our roads and our bridges, make long-term investments in a smarter energy grid, and so much more."

April 13, 2009: "We passed the recovery plan less than two months ago. Two weeks later, I came here to DOT to announce that we would be investing $28 billion to rebuild and repair our highways, roads and bridges."

April 29, 2009: "Across the state, roughly 20,000 transportation jobs will be supported by the Recovery Act so that Missourians rebuilding your roads, your bridges, your rails."

September 10, 2010: "So, that’s why, Milwaukee, today, I am announcing a new plan for rebuilding and modernizing America’s roads and rails and runways for the long term. (Applause.) I want America to have the best infrastructure in the world. We used to have the best infrastructure in the world. We can have it again. We are going to make it happen. (Applause.)

"Over the next six years, over the next six years, we are going to rebuild 150,000 miles of our roads — that’s enough to circle the world six times. That’s a lot of road. We’re going to lay and maintain 4,000 miles of our railways –- enough to stretch coast to coast. We’re going to restore 150 miles of runways. And we’re going to advance a next-generation air-traffic control system to reduce travel time and delays for American travelers. (Applause.) I think everybody can agree on that."

My conclusion: President BO just says what he thinks you want to hear.

If you are a liberal, you accept it without challenge, because intent is more important than action.

If you are a conservative, you recognize it for what it is: pure, unadulterated political pablum, fit only for the ears of political sophomores, "...full of sound and fury, signifying nothing." (Shakespeare)

Saturday, September 18, 2010


President BO's answer: "Well, nobody, really...they just sort of...well, OK, the government."

The Declaration's actual answer: "...they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable rights..."

Friday, September 17, 2010


So you liberals refused to respond to the question whether Bill Press represents the thinking of liberals in general. Maybe Maxine Waters represents you better...right?

Why she just HAS to be the one to represent all that you stand for.
Doesn't she?

OK...maybe not.

More likely Eleanor Holmes Norton...right?

No, no! It's gotta be Rick Boucher, D-VA.

It's so hard to pick!

Thursday, September 16, 2010


Is it or is it not true that those who make $250,000.00 are in the top ten percent of economic earners who pay 70% of all income taxes?

That is not a matter of your opinion, or mine, it is a question of what is.

It happens to be true.

The conclusion you and I draw from that fact might differ, but the fact itself is not in question.

If you are gainfully employed in the private sector (for those of you educated in government schools, that means a non-government job), you work for a person or corporation who is richer than you are...otherwise, they could not pay your salary.

Maybe you think you deserve more...and well you might.

So, what is stopping you from finding a product people want, manufacturing and/or selling it and moving up the ladder of success to become one of those making $250,000.00 or more?

Answer: Education and ambition.

Get educated in your chosen field, develop the drive, and you, too, can become rich. (In today's market, it might be good to steer clear of the automobile industry, the banking industry and other financial industries as long as the government is still diddling their fingers in them...but most other lines of production would be good).

What will you do with your riches?

Unless you can figure out how to go it alone, you will need to hire some people to help you produce/sell your product.

There will be production costs, override costs, distribution costs and taxes, as well as any people who helped you raise the money to start your business to pay, but everything over that can be spent on such things as salaries, product improvement, the building and maintaining of facilities and equipment, the electric bill, water bill, phone bill and other mundane expenses.

What's left over is yours to keep.

If you want to take home $250,000.00, your company will only have to earn between $1,000,000.00 and $1,200,000.00 per year...gross.

Piece of cake, right?

Here's the rub: When those expenses get out of whack, if production costs go up, or if distribution goes up, you have to increase your unit selling price or there goes your $250,000.00 take home.

Most expenses can be calculated ahead of time and adjustments made accordingly by business owners.

There is one area that seems to fluctuate inordinately and frequently without rhyme or reason: taxes...local, regional and federal.

Being unable to predict what taxes will be the "next time around" makes for uncertainty and creates a reluctance for a company to commit to a given level of production and/or hiring.

If it were a case of "you made such-and-such, therefore you pay X in taxes," that would be one thing. But it does not work like that.

Taxes tend to change on everything spasmodically and on everything differently.

Payroll taxes change, gas taxes change, hospitality taxes change, corporate taxes change, fees and levees change...all at unpredictable rates and almost always up.

Thus your business will be hard pressed to predict what it will cost to stay in business.

Add to that the fact that many people resent that you should make $250,000.00 and they don't, therefore vote for politicians who will take more of what you make over that and pass it around to those who neither sought the education nor had the ambition to do the same as you did to make that much.

Making $250,000.00 can be a real headache!

President BO has said that there "...surely is a limit to how much a person needs to make."

Is that so?

Well, who gets to decide what that limit is, you...or me?

If we get a choice, I'll decide, if you don't mind.

A better response would be, "No, a person should be able to make as much as he or she wants to make and/or can make with no restrictions whatsoever, so long as it is done legally and ethically."

That gives everybody the opportunity (not necessarily the ability or drive) to make a more than comfortable living.

The real trouble is, there are too many whiners and criers who think the rich got rich by osmosis or by "winning life's lottery," when, in fact, the majority of them got there by being resourceful, productive and by volunteering to share their wealth with those who work for them.

The point of all this is (now don't miss this by getting all balled up with some irrelevant detail you might disagree with), govenment never helps business...even the "bailouts" did not help business. Government always stifles business.

If you disagree with that, go back to school and do some study of economic history. Learn something.

Every time the government has gotten involved in the private sector the economy has suffered.

Someone once said the definition of insanity is, "to keep on doing what you've always done, expecting different results."

Government has been overinvolved in private business far too long.

It is time to turn the tide.

(For those interested: I made it through my atrial-flutter ablation after two tries, and am feeling run over by a Mac truck, but better than I was. Thank you for your thoughts and prayers. God is on His throne.)

Saturday, September 11, 2010


I walked into our pastor's office to say, "Hi" to the staff before going to my own office to start my duties for the day.

"A plane has crashed into the World Trade Center," said the pastor.

He had a TV in his office and the entire staff was watching as the newsmen tried to make sense of what they were reporting.

Suddenly our secretary shouted out, "Wait...there's another one."

We looked at each other and I muttered, "This is no accident."

Sure enough, 19 Middle Eastern men, it turns out, were involved in a plot to fly two jets into the twin towers, one into the Pentagon and one, presumably, into the Capitol building in Washington DC.

This was an attack that killed 2,977 innocents in those two towers.

The Twin Towers represented all that is "wrong" with the Great Satan, America to the perpetrators...the center of the economic activity of the U.S. and the world.

In the Middle East, there was celebration...some of it very public, much of it in clandestine meetings in Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and elsewhere.

Make no mistake, the leaders of this radical element of Islam considered this an act of war on the U.S. and saw it as a great victory.

Now days it is fashionable to "try to understand" what might have driven these radicals to such a dastardly deed.

What did America do to cause such hatred?

The answer is, "No matter...there is NO excuse for the taking of innocent lives."

Just as there is no excuse for killing in response to the burning of a few copies of Qur'an.

Just as there is no excuse for killing in response to drawing a cartoon of Mohammad.

These people just like to kill, and will do so for almost any reason.

They kill their own women for breaking imagined religious rules.

They cut off the hands of thieves.

They inflict cruel and unusual punishment routinely, so that it is cruel, but no longer unusual.

To point out these propensities is called "Islamaphobia."

Well, I confess: I hate this element of Islam, and will defend myself against it to the best of my ability.

Today, we have the insidious suggestion that building a "community center" that includes a place for these very people to worship is somehow going to build a bridge of understanding between them and us.

It will not.

If you think that is the motive for the building of such a center, you are Pollyannic and can't see the truth when it is as close as the end of your nose.

In the minds of the perps, this was a successful war on America.

As a forgiving society, we are on the verge of forgetting what really happened on that day nine years ago.

We do so at our peril.

If we are to remain the land of the free and the home of the brave, we must


Friday, September 10, 2010


I'll be out of pocket for a few days, as I am going in for an atrial-flutter ablation on Monday.

They go up the veins (as opposed to the arteries, which they use for inserting stents), go into the heart and cauterize parts of the biological pace maker(s) in the atria.

I'm certain it will be great fun.

If you'd like to know more, here's a link.

Since Friday the 13th falls on a Monday this month, I trust everything will work out well and I'll be back...probably on Tuesday.

In the mean time, hold down the fort, stay the course, man the depth charges and whatever else is necessary to keep liberalism at bay.

Thursday, September 9, 2010


In June 2007, Muslims burst into the Rosary Sister School and convent, breaking crosses, burning all of the books, including Bibles and destroyed a statue of Jesus.

In 2009, United States military personnel burned confiscated Bibles in Afghanistan.

The Bibles, printed in the two most common Afghan languages, were burned amid concern they would be used to try to convert Afghans, the Cable News Network (CNN) quoted a a Defense Department spokesman as saying.

Military analyst and Pentagon adviser, Lt. Col. Robert Maginnis, criticized the move. "There is no need to burn the Bibles. They could have been shipped back," he said. "Just imagine if we, the same the United States military, were to take a bunch of Korans and burn them. I can imagine the ramifications across the world."

Was there wide spread media outcry? No.

Was there wide spread public outrage? No.

Did Christians gather in the streets protesting, holding signs, destroying property and shouting, "Death to Islam?" No.

But a pastor who leads a "flock" of 50 people announces that he will burn copies of Qur'an, and the world goes into an absolute tizzy.

Muslims take to the street shouting, "Down with America!" and "Kill the Infidels!" They burn the American flag in public, not as an appropriate way to dispose of a worn flag, but as a symbol of their hatred of The Great Satan, America.

The MSM expresses consternation and outrage that a pastor could be so insensitive.

Talk about hatred...the hatred spewed toward this Gainesville, Florida pastor is so far out of proportion as to be indicative of the base nature of humanity as a whole.

Let it be known without equivocation that I think the burning of Qur'an by this pastor is not a wise move. It will not accomplish a single positive thing. It is stupid.

Let it also be known that I support the pastor's right to burn Quo'ran, just as I deplore but support the burning of the American flag, the protesting of various groups against the government and all other forms of expression, so long as the rights of others are not infringed upon.

However, the outrage being expressed is both disproportional and fabricated.

If you are among the "outraged," you have been duped by Islam to a greater extent than you have realized. You have been overcome by the politically correct crowd.

Either that or you are just a liberal who loves to find reason to wag your finger at "Christians" for whatever their actions.

My Christ does not engage in the burning of Qur'an. While he did castigate the religious leaders of the time (which is the political reason He was crucified), His only expression of extreme behavior came when he overturned the tables at the Bazzar of Annas, when Annas used the temple to cheat worshippers.

While the Gainesville congregation may call themselves Christians, they are not following Christ or the leadership of the Holy Spirit (who can NEVER lead contrary to Scripture) when they burn Qur'an.

But let's not pretend that the event itself will be meaningful.

If Muslims react badly, that is on their heads, not mine and not the head of Rev. Terry Jones.

Islam, after all, is a hate filled, reactive, violent, exclusive religion that seeks world domination and to kill those who disagree with it.

It's in the book.

ADDENDUM (10:00 PM): Rev. Terry Jones has made the right decision and is NOT going to burn the copies of the Qur'an after all. He reportedly is going to NY to speak with the Imam in charge of the Ground Zero mosque. To what end I am not certain.

Wednesday, September 8, 2010


It was January 7, 2008. A young black Democrat was surging in the polls in the New Hampshire primary.

He had less than two years experience in high office, but already he thought enough of himself to imagine being elected president of the United States.

It was not his experience, or lack thereof that, was propelling him toward "his destiny," it was his blackness.

Almost every press release, every special report, every interview brought up the subject of the possibility of "America's first black president."

The mainstream media never made mention of his accomplishments, for he had had few.

They tried to ignore the kind of "work" he had done before being elected to the Senate, but they could not. So, they glamorized it, again emphasizing his race and the opportunity for the United States to make a historic move and elect the first black man the presidency had ever seen.

Asked how he would close out his run in New Hampshire, candidate Barack H. Obama replied:

"I am going to try to be so persuasive in the 20 minutes or so that I speak that by the time this is over, a light will shine down from somewhere.

"It will light upon you. You will experience an epiphany. And you will say to yourself, I have to vote for Barack. I have to do it."

As Alex Knepper observed, "Obama came into office drunk on his own hype. He thought that he was bigger than the job; that his charisma and cool alone could shape history. (“This campaign is about you,” his campaign’s website said. That’s a good tip-off: whenever someone says that it’s not about them, it’s always, always about them.)"

The press, whether by design or by complacency, ignored his lack of experience and convinced the public that they should, too.

They castigated Dan Quale for "potatoe," but completely passed on Obama's "corpse" for "corps."

The media made fun of Sarah Palin saying she could "...see Russia from her house" (even though she never said was a line by Tina Faye on SNL), yet they overlook President BO when he engages in a deep bow before the Saudi King at the G-20.

His Algorish statement, "I believe the nation that invented the automobile cannot walk away from it," illustrates his need to brush up on his industry history.

The trouble is, Barack Obama is now president, and his lack of experience is laid bare on the international front, the economic front, the social front, the science front, the business front and even the political front.

It's not as though it is too late for him to learn about all of those things. He certainly has the resources available to do so, if he wanted to.

The problem is, he believes himself to be so charismatic, and is so narcissistic, that he can't imagine something to be untrue once he has made a pronouncement about it.

In his latest self-incarnation, he told a Milwaukee, Wisconsin union crowd "Some powerful interests who had been dominating the agenda in Washington for a very long time and they're not always happy with me. They talk about me like a dog. That's not in my prepared remarks, but it's true."

He feels hard done to.

Maybe he is at last coming to grips with the fact that his oratory has no effect on that stubbornly persistent unemployment rate.

Perhaps he realizes that The Taliban isn't impressed with his being the first black president.

Could it be that he understands at last that Scott Brown won’t resign simply because Obama accuses him of being a force against hope?

Is he learning that forcing your agenda through is, historically, a pretty inept way of getting something done?

Actually, no.

There is no hope that President BO will see the truth and change his mind or policy on anything...ever.

After all, he has but to look into the pond to see the abject beauty of himself and to remind America that "...we are the ones we've been waiting for."


Labor Day weekend, President BO said Republicans have opposed virtually everything he has done to help the economy, and have proposed solutions that have only made the problem worse.

OK...let's look at this very professional president's whiny statement.

"Republicans have opposed virtually everything he has done to help the economy..."

What might those things be?

Doubling the deficit since he took office?

Now why on earth would Republicans oppose that?

Maybe we're talking about how Americans are "still looking for the 'shovel-ready' jobs they were promised more than a year ago" in the $814 billion economic stimulus measure

Why, no self-respecting Republican would point that out...would he?

Perhaps we reference bank bail-outs that have resulted in more bank closings than ever in American history?

Why would Republicans oppose that?

Surely we must be speaking of all of the other failed policies he has suggested and/or implemented.

Republicans would be foolish to oppose failed policies, would they not?

So, what about the part of the statement that claims that Republicans have proposed solutions that have only made the problem worse?

Say what?

Somebody please explain to me how proposing a solution makes a problem worse.

Merely proposing makes something worse?


I kinda thought something had to be done to make a problem worse (or better, for that matter).

President BO just babbles on, with dumb, ignorant statements that are absorbed by liberals as gospel.

In fact, liberals just burst with pride over this incompetent buffoon.

I just shake my head in disbelief.

Tuesday, September 7, 2010


The following is NOT original with me. It was sent to me in an email by a frequent commenter on this blog, Mighty Ginsu.

Nevertheless, I thought the questions worth asking.

If George W. Bush had doubled the national debt, which had taken more than two centuries to accumulate, in one year, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had then proposed to double the debt again within 10 years, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had criticized a state law that he admitted he never even read, would you think that he is just an ignorant hot head?

If George W. Bush joined the country of Mexico and sued a state in the United States to force that state to continue to allow illegal immigration, would you question his patriotism and wonder who's side he was on?

If George W. Bush had put 87,000 workers out of work by arbitrarily placing a moratorium on offshore oil drilling on companies that have one of the best safety records of any industry because one company had an accident would you have agreed?

If George W. Bush had used a forged document as the basis of the moratorium that would render 87,000 American workers unemployed would you support him?

If George W. Bush had been the first President to need a TelePrompTer installed to be able to get through a press conference, would you have laughed and said this is more proof of how inept he is on his own and is really controlled by smarter men behind the scenes?

If George W. Bush had spent hundreds of thousands of dollars to take Laura Bush to a play in NYC, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had reduced your retirement plan's holdings of GM stock by 90% and given the unions a majority stake in GM, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had made a joke at the expense of the Special Olympics, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given Gordon Brown a set of inexpensive and incorrectly formatted DVDs, when Gordon Brown had given him a thoughtful and historically significant gift, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had given the Queen of England an iPod containing videos of his speeches, would you have thought this embarrassingly narcissistic and tacky?

If George W. Bush had bowed to the King of Saudi Arabia , would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had visited Austria and made reference to the nonexistent "Austrian language," would you have brushed it off as a minor slip?

If George W. Bush had filled his cabinet and circle of advisers with people who cannot seem to keep current in their income taxes, would you have approved?

If George W. Bush had stated that there were 57 states in the United States , would you have said that he is clueless.

If George W. Bush would have flown all the way to Denmark to make a five minute speech about how the Olympics would benefit him walking out his front door in Texas , would you have thought he was a self important, conceited, egotistical jerk.

If George W. Bush had been so Spanish illiterate as to refer to "Cinco de Cuatro" in front of the Mexican ambassador when it was the 5th of May (Cinco de Mayo), and continued to flub it when he tried again, would you have winced in embarrassment?

If George W. Bush had misspelled the word "advice" would you have hammered him for it for years like Dan Quayle and potatoes as proof of what a dunce he is?

If George W. Bush had burned 9,000 gallons of jet fuel to go plant a single tree on Earth Day, would you have concluded he's a hypocrite?

If George W. Bush's administration had okayed Air Force One flying low over millions of people followed by a jet fighter in downtown Manhattan causing widespread panic, would you have wondered whether they actually get what happened on 9-11?

If George W. Bush had failed to send relief aid to flood victims throughout the Midwest with more people killed or made homeless than in New Orleans , would you want it made into a major ongoing political issue with claims of racism and incompetence?

If George W. Bush had created the position of 32 Czars who report directly to him, bypassing the House and Senate on much of what is happening in America , would you have approved.

If George W. Bush had ordered the firing of the CEO of a major corporation, even though he had no constitutional authority to do so, would you have approved?

So, tell me again, what is it about Obama that makes him so brilliant and impressive? Can't think of anything?

Don't worry.

He's done all of these things in 21 months -- so you'll have plenty of time to come up with an answer.

Monday, September 6, 2010


I have often been taken to task for proclaiming that liberals have elected an amateur to "serve" as president.

The following is a list of about 1/8 of the missteps, miscues, misstatements and misdeeds that have solidly landed him in the role of Amateur in Chief.

(Note: Some of the dates are approximate, but you can check the facts, 'cause you're so smart.)

July 2010: Obama quotes the Emma Lazarus poem as “…huddled masses yearning to be free.” The actual quote is: “Huddled masses yearning to breathe free. (Amateur)

July 6, 2010: Barack Obama told a Racine, Wisconsin audience that they "...should count themselves lucky about unemployment:… So people kind of say, yeah, but unemployment is still at 9.6. Yes, but it’s not 12 or 13, or 15." Actually, it was 14.2% on that very day. (Amateur)

July 5, 2010: Obama tells a Detroit crowd: “…at least unemployment is not 12% or 15%…”
Yeah…and at least it wasn’t 60% or 70%! We should all feel better. (Amateur)

July 7, 2010: BO: “…Our businesses have always been a force for dynamism. But there is also a role for government in helping us adapt to—and shape—the future. From the Erie Canal to space exploration to what became the Internet, we’ve always come together to spur transformation.”

In fact, the federal government refused to get involved in building the Erie Canal and left it to the State of New York to handle it on their own. (Amateur)

July 8, 2010: The president finds a new mission for NASA – find points of commonality between USA and Islamic nations, giving the wrong mission to the wrong agency. (Amateur)

July 8, 2010: He tells a Kansas City crowd: “We’ve got a long way to go. But what is absolutely clear is we’re moving in the right direction.” In fact, that day the figures put out by his own administration showed a downturn in employment. (Amateur)

July 7th At a Foreign Press Conference, President BO, when confronted with the anxiety that some Israelis feel toward him, Obama said that “some of it may just be the fact that my middle name is Hussein, and that creates suspicion.”

One of the most exasperating qualities of Barack Obama is his insistence on casting himself as a victim when people disagree with his policies. He must have forgotten that his staff informed him that Israel and Jordan have a peace agreement approved by then-King Hussein of Jordan.

July 14, 2010 (referencing HIV/AIDS research): BO says: “I know the need is great, and that’s why we’ve increased federal assistance each year that I’ve been in office…” He had been in office 18 months. (For those of you educated in government schools, there’s not an “every year” in that…it’s only a year-and-a-half. Besides, he HASN’T increased it THIS year, so it is blatantly false to begin with. (Amateur)

July 15, 2010 (following the president’s remarks about his outrage over al Qaeda’s multiple acts of terrorism, killing more Muslims than “infidels” have and brainwashing teens to commit suicide in the name of Allah while the leaders hide in caves) an official White House spokesman explains: “al Qaeda is a racist organization that treats black Africans like cannon fodder and does not value human life.” Who knew?

July 18 or 19, 2010 President Obama and family arrive in Trenton, he and Michelle in Air Force One, the kids and dog in a small jet along with the president’s personal aide Reggie Love. Can you say “carbon footprint?” (Amateur)

July 20, 2010: BO announces that he will send NG 1,200 troops to the Mexican border, so if you plan to cross illegally into the US, you need to get ‘er done before August 1, and don’t bring drugs with you, ‘cause that’s all the troops will be looking for. (Amateur)

July, 2010: President BO declares that he understands the plight of unemployed Americans, because he has “walked a mile in their shoes.”

Fact: His only period of unemployment came after graduation from Columbia. The lack of employment had little to do with not being able to find a job, but with a personal decision not to seek one. That may be admirable, but it’s hardly the same as being unemployed from lack of work and resources. (amateur)

July, 2010: “Change hasn’t come fast enough for too many Americans. I know that,” Obama said in a surprise video appearance to liberal activists and bloggers at Las Vegas convention. “I know it hasn’t come fast for many of you who fought so hard during the election.” Translation: We’ve failed. But we’re going to keep doing what we’ve been doing and we’ll keep expecting different results.” (amateur)

If that’s not enough, here are some more examples:

Obama expects to be held accountable on jobs, but it’s Bush’s fault.

Obama golfs as BP’s CEO yachts.

Obama says Gulf disaster will have similar impact to 9/11, then goes golfing the next day.

“We talk to these folks because they potentially have the best answers so I know whose ass to kick."

“Singularly focused” Obama’s golfing, fundraising, vacation, and sports events.

“Obviously, the loss of Daniel Pearl was one of those moments that captured the world’s imagination because it reminded us of how valuable a free press is.”

Criticizes AZ immigration enforcement for paper checking while Secret Service checks immigration status of students at Obama event.

“Information becomes a distraction” with X-boxes, Play Stations, iPods, iPads..."

“I mean, I do think at a certain point you’ve made enough money.”

President who demands that Americans show health-insurance papers suddenly skittish about residency documents.

Playing golf instead of paying respects to the late Polish president.

“Whether we like it or not, we remain a dominant military superpower” Gives 17-minute answer to question about being overtaxed.

Believes Tea Party core is Birthers.

Obama refused to be seen with Netanyahu.

“Your employer, it’s estimated, would see premiums fall by as much as 3000%!”

Obama off by $868 billion on CBO deficit savings projection of ObamaCare Obama challenges GOP on tort reform, winds up proving GOP point on reconciliation.

Obama’s “Acme Insurance” anecdote proves he doesn’t understand insurance.

Obama claims 2 million jobs saved or created, website shows 590K.

Obama gripes about filibusters in a year with none … after having 60 seats in the Senate.

Obama says “corpse-man” for corpsman 3 times at Nat’l Prayer Breakfast Scolding the Supreme
Court over ruling that he got completely wrong during SOTU.

People are unhappy with Obama’s performance because he didn’t get enough public face time to explain himself.

Suddenly jobs saved or created “never expected to be the public accounting of Obama’s goal to save or create 3.5 million jobs.”

Obama rushes home for minor injury to family friend, keeps golfing after Eunuch Bomber attack.

These, along with their links, can be found at Hot Air.

As I said, this is but about 1/8 of the examples I could have sited, but if you are a liberal, you won't really read even these, because, being the product of government schools, you can't read that long at one time.

Nor can you understand how actual facts are related to actual truth.

The fact remains: You have elected an inexperienced, non-professional, inept amateur to be the "leader" of the free world.

Sunday, September 5, 2010


By now you have probably seen the new rug in the Oval Office at the White House.

It had been featured on camera before President BO's "Iraq Withdrawal Speech."

He was so proud of it, showing it off to staff and visitors alike.

What a wonderful thing, this new rug.

To make it even more special, it has quotes from statesmen past all along its circumference.

Abraham Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and the Rev. Martin Luther King Jr...their quotes are all there for the public to read and be moved by, complete with attributions.

One of the quotes is attributed to Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

"The arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice."

Wonderful thought. Very provocative. Deep. Great sentiment.

Only it is not a quote by Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Rather it is by Theodore Parker, Bostonian champion of social progress with roots in the republic so deep that his grandfather commanded the Minutemen at the Battle of Lexington.

But there it is, woven forever into the fabric of the new Oval Office rug, attributed to Dr. King.

The rug itself is not a bad idea, nor is it a good one. It is solidly neutral as decor.

But you'd think that a rug to be bragged about would have at least been checked for accuracy...wouldn't you?

To check it for accuracy, though, one would have to actually know where the quotes came from. Seemingly, nobody involved in the process did.

And that makes it indicative of the over-all eptitude of this administration.

An honest mistake?


How about a mistake by a president and his administration who know absolutely nothing about American history, who we are as a country or how we got to be the leading country on the planet.

He lectures us with a stern face on topics from economics to internationally deplomacy, but knows absolutely nothing about either.

How about: you people elected a man as president who we told you had no executive experience of any kind, who moved up the political ladder through cronyism and who was and is contemptuous of the Constitution he promised (lying, of course) to protect and defend.

How about: you people elected a rank amateur, who knows nothing and whose ego precludes him from learning anything or being told anything by anybody.

You fools.

Friday, September 3, 2010


President BO promised that if he were elected, our economic woes would be turned around.

He was who we'd been waiting for.

Bush got us into this mess, according to President BO, but have no fear, he would get us out.

Turns out President BO, the smartest man ever to occupy the White House, didn't know how bad things were.

They were so bad, that everything he did made them worse!

And it was, and still is, George Bush's fault.

Let's see how well President BO has done.

1. Housing prices have dipped again.

2. Foreclosures are up.

3. Stocks are bobbing and weaving.

4. Unemployment is back up to 9.6%

5. 54,000 jobs were lost last month.

6. American deaths are up in Iraq.

7. Terrorists are practicing their next move in US.

8. The largest tax hike in history is about to take place.

9. The fed is suing one of our own states!

10. Bedbugs are infesting the nation.

11. Medicare Advantage Plans are being scrapped.

12. Radical environmentalists are taking hostages!

13. Government schools are losing educational ground.

14. President BO is more unpopular than ever.

15. More health insurance costs are being pushed on employees.

16. Civil rights are suffering at the hands of Democrats.

17. Harry Reid’s lost war is won (Read: abandoned).

18. Race relations are deteriorating.

19. Union thugs are assaulting people.

20. Democrats are lying about their votes on TARP.

21. The deficit is at an all-time, unimaginable high...and it's going to go higher.

22. The national debt is at an all time, unimaginable high and it's going to go higher.

23. Our children and grandchildren will never be able to enjoy the blessings of life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and/or the American Dream.

24. As a country, we are MUCH worse off than we were when President BO took office.

25. President BO set us on an economic course that he told us would fix it all.

President BO, isn’t it time to admit that whatever it is you think you are doing,


Thursday, September 2, 2010

Wednesday, September 1, 2010


This is just absolutely beyond the logic pale!

Dr. Martin Luther King's speech from that very location was FILLED with references to God.

For instance:

And when this happens, when we allow freedom ring, when we let it ring from every village and every hamlet, from every state and every city, we will be able to speed up that day when all of God’s children, black men and white men, Jews and Gentiles, Protestants and Catholics, will be able to join hands and sing in the words of the old Negro spiritual:

Free at last! Free at last!

Thank God Almighty, we are free at last!

Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.

Was he inappropriate?

He was a minister! Did you not know that? A preacher! A pastor!

As soon as the words left his mouth, Press knew he was wrong, but liberals cannot EVER admit that they are wrong.

So Press blunders on, now trying to impart logic to his remarks, hoping that maybe nobody will notice.

What a typical liberal!