Monday, December 12, 2011

Happy Yule!

I hope everyone is having a wonderful holiday season. I'm taking a break for awhile. I can't go to Hawaii for 17 days like the Obamas and spend a gob-zillion bucks, but I can enjoy the holidays just the same. God bless, and see you after the New Year.




Sunday, November 20, 2011

Photo of the Day





Photo credit: The Brigade.

Thursday, November 17, 2011

Allen West to Media: "Stop being afraid of this president"



Rep. Allen West (R, FL) made these remarks on Tuesday at a press conference in support of the TransCanada Keystone XL pipeline.

“It’s about time that I asked this from the media: Stop being afraid of this president,” said Rep. West. “Stand up to him and call him out on the shirking of his duties and responsibilities. The House Republicans are passing pieces of legislation, after pieces of legislation about jobs.”

“And here we got a president that’s gone off to Australia, playing golf in Hawaii, and you guys allow him to make this decision to shut down this Keystone XL project,” said West. “The media needs to call out this president and stop coming over here to the House Republicans and telling us what we’re not doing. We’re the ones taking action. The guy sitting at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue is destroying this country.”

West made his remarks in light of President "Present's" decision to put off the decision about the pipeline until after the 2012 election. Obviously there's nothing more sacred to Obama than his own re-election; a decision in favor of the pipeline would anger his base; a decision against the pipeline is something he would have to defend during his re-election campaign. So Obama had decided to kick this one down the road, regardless of the how often he tells people he's focused like a laser on jobs for Americans, or focused on getting this country off of its dependence on Middle Eastern oil.

Update: "President Priss," by Mark Hyman at American Thinker. Contrary to the Obama hype that was fed to us during the 2008 election cycle, Hyman asserts that Obama is of average, pedestrian intelligence; his looks, rather than "handsome," are best described as the post-adolescent Steve Urkel minus the oversized plastic rim glasses; he is of barely average athleticism, and probably not even that--no one is allowed to see him play golf or basketball, except for the well-inside-the-two-point-range jump shot; he received the Nobel Peace Prize, even though he authorized more drone strikes in a year than Bush in eight years (and don't forget Libya); he believes himself the most successful president a half century, even though our job market is worse than during the Great Depression. He can't bowl, he rides a girl's bike (the only thing missing from that bike were the handlebar streamers and woven basket), he drinks effeminately, using his fingertips to hold the glass and extending his pinky, and he's labeled a "fashionista." When he goes on "The View" instead of a hard news show, he crosses his legs just like the women on the show, etc. etc.

I'm not sure where Hyman was going with this article, but he lets readers come to their own conclusions. Some of the commenters were in a snit, their noses out of joint because Hyman assumes that a man with all of these "personality tweaks" (??) is effeminate. That obviously wasn't the point of Hyman's article. The point of it, for me, is not who or what Obama is, but who and what he was portrayed to be during the 2008 election cycle. Clearly, his biography was filled with misrepresentations and lies, and unlike what the media is doing now to one Republican candidate after another, our leftwing lapdog media wrote literally thousands of fawning articles, all about their love affair with their brown-eyed boy.

Had Obama been seen riding that bike before the election, even the sycophant press couldn't have helped him out enough to get him elected; that photo would have done for him what the tank picture did for Michael Dukakis. It's just a fact of life: Americans don't want a sissy pantywaist for a president.




And we sure as hell don't like it when he badmouths Americans when he's out of the country. (What is this, a new bowling shirt?--(h/t Michelle Obama's Mirror's Blog for the pic). Yet again, Obama is out of the country when he should be here showing leadership on the economy, and while abroad he's taking cheap shots at Americans--this time it was American kids. He just can't seem to help himself. Every time he goes abroad, he has to run down this country. There truly never has been an American president like this one.

Wednesday, November 16, 2011

"I don't talk to the press"

Chelsea Clinton hates the media--she always has. She's never given an interview, not even to 9-year-old kid reporter Sydney Rieckhoff, who asked her a question in 2009 for Scholastic News when Chelsea was out on the campaign stump for her mother.

Kid reporter: "Do you think your dad would be a good 'first man' in the White house?" young Sydney asked.

Chelsea Clinton: "I'm sorry, I don't talk to the press and that applies to you." WTF?

OK, so that would be fine, I suppose, except that now little Chelsea has a new job as a special correspondent for NBC News, no less. Seriously? "Chelsea Clinton has loathed the news media for most of her life," wrote Don Van Natta, reporter for the NYT, via Twitter. So what does she do? She takes the plumb job in prime time at NBC News--and refuses to be interviewed. Haha. No, you can't make this stuff up.

Says Erik Wemple, who has an opinion blog on news media at the Washington Post: After all, you can’t say it’s not relevant — if you’re going to interview other people, it might be helpful to have spent a moment or two on the other side of the mike. . . . Now Clinton will be asking lots of questions. She just won't answer any. What a great media world we inhabit.

I'm pretty sure no one has even heard this woman speak. At least Brian Williams hasn't, since he recently said, in a "gushing defense" of her hire at NBC: "She just wants to work for us and she just wants to do our "Making a Difference" stories. . . . Most Americans haven't heard her voice. . . . I don't know her well, but what an impressive, impressive woman . . . .I can't wait to hear her voice and her viewpoint. Oh for the love of God.

Chelsea has a master's in Public Health from Columbia and a bachelor's in history from Stanford. She has lived her life off of her trust fund (daddy's money); her life experience, and Brian Williams clearly attests to this, consists of "travel." Whoo-hoo. She schmoozes with her other 1% friends on her expense account and then goes to the head of the line in prime time at NBC. I'm looking forward to hearing about the first person who stiffs her for an interview. Heh.

Rush Limbaugh said yesterday that this was being done so that Chelsea has an opportunity to get used to being in front of the camera, a skill necessary for neophyte politicians, since obviously her intent is to run for some political office at some point or another. We remember the disaster that Carolyn Kennedy made of her Senate bid, sounding like a New York Valley Girl with all of her "you know's." Wow, Chelsea Clinton for Senate. That's really something to look forward to. Although Carolyn Kennedy's "you know" disaster (repeated 142 times in one interview) came during an interview. It would seem that the skill that Chelsea really needs is talking to people, one that up to and including the present day she has consistently run from.

Update: A must-read from Clarice Feldman at American Thinker: "Secrets of the American Nomenklatura." "TV News is now officially entertainment and if you are looking for journalism turn it off and look elsewhere."

Sunday, November 13, 2011

Michelle Obama in Hawaii

Seriously. This is our First Lady?

And this. I'm sorry, but this woman has no business representing our country. I wish this woman would get a clue about the amount of her flesh that we really all would rather not see. Then she greases herself up like a skank. What is wrong with this woman? Seriously, I think she's pretty much wasted most of the time that she appears in public. Wasted on alcohol--and whatever else I wouldn't know.

This behavior is NOT APPROPRIATE. Do we really have to say this? Can they not "handle" this woman, or is she just totally out of control? You know, I get it that this woman probably doesn't get any at home. So can't her handlers do something about that--like bring someone to Big White to service her or something. And then keep her away from the ALCOHOL when she's in public like this?

This is from Michelle Obama's Mirror's Blog--one of the commenters.

I do not want to be walking thru a heavily flora'd area and see a very large, bent over something coming toward me. That stance is agressive, threatening, precharge mode.

Who is that man locked in mortal combat with her? His hands are restraining her arms while she is heaving to pull  him in to grind her breasts against him; and he isn't even wearing medals.

The Russian is terrified.
Can anyone blame him?

A quote from Dolly Parton: "You'd be surprised how much it costs to look this cheap." Michelle Obama needs to get a grip and realize that she's not 20 years old. . . she's not even 30 years old. As FLOTUS, showing off all that skin and backfat is inappropriate.



Update. While touring an organic farm in Hawaii, Mrs. Obama suggested that poor children need to learn to eat--need to "get their palates adjusted." Evidently the reason they aren't eating vegetables is because "there are no grocery stores." If they would only learn to eat arugula (and steak--her favorite meal) then they wouldn't grow up obese. This woman is walking, talking proof that affirmative action is a really bad idea--it just doesn't work.

Thursday, November 10, 2011

Is the Tide Turning for Herman Cain?

Updates below.

Read the article by Ann Coulter, "David Axelrod's Pattern of Misbehavior." No matter what you think of Ann Coulter, if you've read any of her books, you know that one of her skills is research. I'm so glad to see that someone is interested in these questions that don't seem to bother the heads of anyone in the mainstream media.

How did Politico, the blog that broke the Cain story with 96 stories in six days, get their hands on Herman Cain's personnel records from the National Restaurant Association (NRA)? Well, Coulter thinks she knows. It seems that a woman named Sheila O'Grady, who is a close friend of David Axelrod, went straight from being former Chicago mayor Richard M. Daley's chief of staff to president of the Illinois Restaurant Association (IRA). O'Grady has issued a denial that she had anything to do with obtaining the records. [Prove you didn't, Sheila. Oh, that's right, it's really tough to prove a negative, isn't it?]

The Daley-controlled IRA works closely with the NRA. And, as Ann Coulter points out: "strangely enough, Cain's short, three-year tenure at the NRA is evidently the only period in his decades-long career during which he's alleged to have been a sexual predator."

Herman Cain has never lived in Chicago, but David Axelrod has. And who lived in Axelrod's building? None other than Sharon Bailek. She admitted when she made the rounds of the morning shows that she knows Axelrod. I think she put it something like, It's a friendly building and we would "wink" when we saw each other going to the gym. This is exactly the sort of thing that ObamaTeam did to get Obama elected as an Illinois state senator and then as the Junior Senator from Illinois--his campaign was able to obtain sealed divorce records which he used against his opponents. I don't think for one second that the Chicago Machine had nothing to do with this Cain slander.

Coulter goes into great detail about the two people Obama ran against and how their divorce records were used to knock them out of the race. The entire article is worth the read.

I have the strangest feeling that there are going to be a lot of people with egg on their faces once this whole thing is over. Cain gave just about the best debate performance tonight that someone under this sort of stress and scrutiny could have given. I think we're going to be looking back on this night and saying, This is where events started to turn around for Herman Cain.

Do I think he's going to be the Republican nominee? No, I do not. But what I do think is this: Thank God Caine had the brass to fight back against this ugly sort of takedown tactic. It's about time somebody stood up to these Chicago thugs.

I hope Herman Caine is innocent, and I hope his lawyer scares the crap out of Sharon and Karen and slaps them both with a lawsuit. And Politico as well. We all know there's a higher standard for libel and defamation of character for public figures; but that doesn't mean there's no standard.

Update. I forgot to mention that last night, when the moronic CNBC debate moderator, Maria Bartiromo, asked Cain about "leadership" and being accused of "inappropriate behavior," the audience booed her and her question. Then when Cain answered, they applauded and cheered. The look on Bartiromo's face was the debate moment of the night. Priceless. These media-types don't get it. The American people are essentially decent and fair, and they don't like to see the kind of pile-on that's been happening to Cain in the media.

Update #2. This is interesting, from an article that I found at CBSAtlanta.com. Maybe it proves nothing, I have no idea, but it's interesting, nonetheless. Anyone ever heard of speech software that analyzes the stress in a person's voice? Private Investigator TJ Ward analyzed Cain's speech from his press conference: "If he is hiding something this thing would have spiked way down here," said Ward. "He is being truthful, totally truthful." During the speech, when Cain denied the claims, the detector read "low risk." According to Ward, that means Cain is telling the truth.

Ward also analyzed Sharon Bailek's speech during her press conference. During the analysis of the section where she reads that Cain grabbed at her genitals and shoved her head towards his crotch, Ward says the detector read "high risk statement," meaning Bailek was not telling the truth about what happened.

The technology being used here is called Voice Stress Analysis, or VSA. "Stressed speech" is defined as speech that exhibits a change in characteristics cause by mental stress caused by anxiety and/or fear."

Mark Levin is incensed about all of this, asking, "Have you ever heard of a presidential candidate being asked to take a lie detector test?" the way Cain was asked by a "journalist" at his press conference. Levin asks, did they ask Barack Obama to take a lie detector test, when he said that in all those years of sitting there in the Rev. Wright's church, he never heard the vile bilge that came out of that man's mouth on a weekly basis? Or how about Ted Kennedy? Did the media ever ask him to take a lie detector test? Levin sounds like he's ready to choke someone. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGBbLRfU5MA&feature=youtu.be

Is the tide turning for Herman Cain? John Nolte at Big Journalism is reporting on the Columbia Journalism Review (CJR), leftist media watchdog, saying this: "Let's Slow Down the Cain Train," where we learn that Politico has published "144" Cain-centric stories. From CJR: "Yet, while allegtions against Cain are significant [oh, you have to love that--allegations are significant], it is irresponsible the extent to which some segments of the political press has allowed them to dominate the political news cycle for these past nine days." Ya think?

Nolte continues: "Politico and the Washington Post are using this story not only as a way to destroy Cain but also as a distraction from Obama's growing pile of failures and brewing scandals. This is all about getting Barack Obama that second term and if 'CJR' looked at the last 10 days through that prism all of the confusion would simply melt away."

Update #3. This is Thursday afternoon. I would have predicted this morning that the firestorm would soon die out over this Cain business. And I seem to be right. Here's what I'm thinking: that the lawyer for Herman Cain has probably by now sent around a letter or two to these people, discussing libel and defamation of character. It's Thursday afternoon, and we haven't heard a doggone word from Lawyer Joel Bennett about the circle-jerk press conference with all of Cain's "accusers." Except for this:

From CNN: "Kraushaar won't do news conference without other accusers." She says she won't do a presser if it's only going to be Sharon and Karen under the hot lights. Hilarious. The other two "accusers," according to the article, aren't returning Karen's calls. The article states that earlier this week, Kraushaar told CNN she has copies of records detailing allegations against Cain. So what is she waiting for?

It would seem that the firestorm these accusers created is fizzling. Big, big, big surprise. I still want to see Herman Cain and his attorney go after Politico. That would be worth the price of admission. I'd also like to see Karen Kraushaar lose her cushy federal job and benefits, including her retirement that my tax dollars would be paying for.


Wednesday, November 09, 2011

The Circus Continues

Now we know the identity of the woman who was awarded a cash settlement of about $45,000 when she was relieved of her job at the National Restaurant Assn. She is Karen Kraushaar, and she would like a joint press conference with Sharon Bialek in order to present a "body of evidence" against Herman Cain. So get ready for the women to show up together in front of the microphones, along with their two lawyers.

Who is Karen Kraushaar? She is the woman represented by the lawyer we heard from earlier, Lawyer Joel Bennett. The one who said she didn't see any value in coming forward, wanted to stay anonymous, and simply wanted to live her life. Evidently she's changed her mind. The National Restaurant Assn. waived her confidentiality agreement in the case so that she could come forward. As far as I can tell, although this is unclear since it's a question that apparently doesn't interest anyone in the media, Kraushaar's lawyer was the one who asked the NRA that his client be released from the confidentiality agreement--although she was obviously for at least a week before talking on background to the people at Politico, so how that didn't violate the agreement is a little bit confusing to me. Anyway, the NRA waived the agreement, so now of course the woman is talking. --Yes, there's a story that Joel Bennett, on behalf of his client Karen Kraushaar, requested that she be released from the confidentiality agreement.

Kraushaar is currently a federal employee, working as a spokesperson for the Inspector General of the IRS. She is a Brown graduate with a master's degree from the U of Michigan and has worked as a career federal government official for various federal agencies.

It might also be instructive to add that after settling the sexual harrassment complaint against Herman Cain in her job with the National Restaurant Assn. in 1999, she went on to work as spokesperson at the Immigration and Naturalization Service at the Justice Department. It was in that job, in 2002 or early 2003 and with the assistance of the same Lawyer Joel Bennett who successfully got her a five-figure settlement in 1999, she again filed a workplace grievance, this time for job discrimination. Maybe it would have seemed too much like a "pattern" to be accusing her boss of sexual discrimination two jobs in a row.

In her second job-related suit, Kraushaar was asking for thousands of dollars in a cash settlement, a reinstatment of leave she used after a car accident in 2002 (which as a federal employee would mean $$ in her pocket), promotion on the federal pay scale (more $$ in her pocket), and a one-year fellowship to Harvard's Kennedy School of Government. This was according to a former supervisor familiar with the complaint. The promotion alone would have increased her salary between $12,000 and $16,000 per year. The complaint was based on Kraushaar's supervisors denying her request to work full time from home (how exactly would you do that if you are a spokesperson for a department--just asking). Included in the complaint against her supervisors was an email, cited by Lawyer Bennett as objectionable, circulated by one of her managers, comparing computers to women and men. This was one of those joke lists that arrive in a person's email box every day: women are like computers because even your smallest mistakes are stored in long-term memory for later retrieval.

You can't blame a girl for trying, since it had worked for her ($$) at the NRA. However, this time she and Lawyer Bennett were unsuccessful, and she dropped the complaint in 2003 and went to work at the Treasury Dept.

Interestingly, Karen doesnt seem to have quite the memory for this second unsuccessful workplace lawsuit that she does for the one against Herman Cain. She says she considers the complaint "relatively minor" (really?--well, maybe she does; maybe in her world a workplace lawsuit is a normal, minor way of responding to conflicts at work); however, she said in an interview on Tuesday that she "doesn't remember" details about the complaint, doesnt remember asking for a payment, a promotion, or a Harvard fellowship. She told the AP reporter that the complaint at the immigration service was "nobody's business" because it had nothing to do with her settlement with the NRA. Lawyer Bennett declined to discuss the case with the AP reporter, citing confidentiality.

You can't make this stuff up. h/t to AP Exclusive: Accuser Filed Complaint in Next Job.

Here's a newsflash for you, Karen. Like it or not, engaging in a workplace lawsuit in two jobs in a row within five years says something about how you roll as an employee. You come across as a person looking to put money in your pocket at someone else's expense. You come across as a cranky, dissatisfied malcontent. Now maybe you just had a lot of bad luck in a couple of jobs. Maybe Herman Cain really did sexually harass you. Maybe you really were treated unfairly in your next job. However, in my experience, the kinds of people who file workplace grievances are the worst sort of people to have to work with. That's just me.

Seriously, it's time for the NRA to release the non-redacted report of what Herman Cain was accused of doing and the findings of same. This he-said, she-said crap has gone on long enough.

Update. The Los Angeles Times confirms that Gloria Allred and Lawyer Joel Bennett will hold a joint news conference with their clients, time and place to be announced. Bennett says that his client will hold a joint news conference with as many of the women who complained of sexual harassment by Herman Cain who will participate. They are evidently hoping that by banning together they can establish a pattern of bad behavior. Evidently the irony of their clients' patterns of bad behavior is lost on the two attorneys. The statute of limitations has run out on any of these charges--but wait!--better than a court of law is the court of public opinion, where allegation and innuendo are the only proof needed.

Update #2. Not to be outdone by the accusers' high profile attorneys, Herman Cain has hired L. Lin Wood Jr. to advise/represent him. Wood is a libel and defamation lawyer who has represented other high profile clients. He is said to be highly respected within the legal community and very good at what he does. Frankly, I wouldn't really want to be in Karen Kraushaar's shoes, represented by ambulance chaser Lawyer Joel Bennett.

In a 2005 interview, Wood said, I believe that courts, since the 1964 decision in the New York Times v. Sullivan, have steadily eroded the ability of individuals and entities to redress false attacks on reputation by overemphasizing the need to safeguard First Amendment rights.

As usual, the media seems to have missed the real story of Cain's news conference. The fact that Cain has hired Wood, a high-powered attorney who has a reputation for competence, persistence, and aggressiveness, ought to be giving the other side pause. Herman Cain has hired one of the best libel and defamation lawyers in the country. This thing isn't over yet.

Update #3. Evidently what Karen did in her job at the Justice Dept. isn't all that uncommon for women (and I wonder if it's just women) working for the federal government. I wish we had some real journalists who were actually curious about these kinds of things who would look into how many of these sorts of suits or complaints get filed every year in the federal government. Anyway, this is from a commenter at GatewayPundit:

This is and was a common career ladder for many women in the Federal Government. Filing a complaint once or twice usually got their careers jump started and they were able to climb to their current grade level. All it takes is one or two successful attempts. If one looks really hard, they’ll probably find another complaint filed by this woman somewhere along the line.

A one-year fellowship to Harvard’s Kennedy School of Government usually included not only their full pay for the full year but also included per diem expenses for food and housing. Not a bad arrangement on the tax payers dime.

One should ask what grade level she is. I’ll bet it’s in the very high level range.

Update #4. Doubling Down. So days ago she was so media shy she wouldn't give out her name. Sometime between then and now, Karen Kraushaar found her voice, doubling down on her history with Cain, telling ABC that Herman Cain is a "monster." And this is rich. Now she says that the reason she didn't want her name to be used is because she fears "retaliation" from Cain supporters. Darlin', you have the wrong party. That would be Democrats who would retaliate. OK, Cain is a monster. Would you care to elaborate on that, Karen? I guess not. ABC evidently decided not to print whatever else, if anything, she said. I guess information from these women will continue to dribble out, bit by bit, which is the strategy. This woman is starting to tick me off.

. . . . Like I said, dribs and drabs. ABC News has printed a longer article with a few more details. The Lawyer Joel Bennett now says that the complaint about the "monster" [I added that, he didn't] involved "multiple" unwanted advances by Cain over the course of "at least a month or two." Nothing further in the article about the "monster" characterization. You know, the guy at Penn State who was sodomizing little boys--I would characterize him as a "monster." A serial killer like Ted Bundy was a "monster." If what Cain was doing to her actually came up to the standard of monstrous, then clearly there would be people who would remember such over-the-top behavior. And also, this sort of thing by Cain wouldn't be a one-off; there would be women lined up around the block with similar complaints.

Am I the only one who would like to see Cain's fellow candidates come out at the debate tonight and defend him?

Tuesday, November 08, 2011

Golddigger

Thats what women like this used to be called. Clearly, Sharon Bialek, 50 years old, is looking for a payday of some kind. Shes been called a smooth operator living way above her means. She was out of a job (fired) when she talked to Cain 14 years ago and shes apparently out of a job now. Seriously, she says shes kept this story about Cain to herself for 14 years, telling only two people during all that time about what happened to her. That was 1997. In 2000, Cain ran for president; in 2004, he ran for the U.S. senate. Cain entered the current presidential race in May. Where has this woman been with her story of scary sexual predator Herman Cain?

What has Sharon been doing all that time? Well, for one thing, Sharon is a courthouse frequent-flyer, plus shes been employed by nine different employers in 17 years.

Lets do a little timeline.

1991, her first personal bankruptcy. At that point her assets were $5,700; her liabilities were $36,000. She had four credit card companies after her seeking payment plus a landlord who wanted his back rent. At the same time she accused a former boyfriend of harassing her for repayment of a loan.

1993-1996, she worked for four different companies in promotion and marketing positions.

1996-1997, she worked for the National Restaurant Assn. When she was fired from that job, says she met with Herman Cain for help in getting another job.

1999, her son was born and a paternity lawsuit was filed by the father. Otherwise, I suppose she would be claiming that Herman Cain was her sons father.

2000 she was a defendant against Broadcare Management.

2000 she was a defendant in a lawsuit against Broadcare Management--twice.

2001, her second personal bankruptcy, filed after sizeable legal bills.

2001-2004, worked for WGN radio.

2005 she was a defendant in a lawsuit against Mr. Mark Teatovic.

2007 she was a defendant in a lawsuit against Midland Funding.

2009 she was a defendant in a lawsuit against Illinois Lending.

2009 the IRS filed a tax lein against her for $5,200. The State of Illinois was after her for more than $4,300, including penalties and interest. 

Nine jobs, two bankruptcies, unpaid taxes, and in court just about every other year in the past decade. This is normal behavior in whose world? Andrea Peyser at the New York Post has a hilarious article about Sharon, describing her as prancing into the press conference yesterday with her lawyer, Gloria Allred, all tricked out in patent leather do-me pumps. The Boston Herald calls it a mixed portrait. And I just fell off my chair laughing, somewhat like Sharon did yesterday. Her demeanor when reading the script Gloria Allreds minions wrote for her was bordering on giddy.

Predictably, Mitt Romney came out today and said that the allegations are serious and must be addressed. So just like any good RINO or leftist, its the seriousness of the charge that is the important criterion. Just wait, Romney, your time is coming, but the left will wait to do their hit job on you until you become the Republican candidate.

Monday, November 07, 2011

Herman Cain

Updates below.

[I still dont have my laptop apostrophe/double quotes key fixed. Annoying.] I dont care how you feel about this guy. What the media has done to this man over the past week is simply beyond belief, which I guess shows how seriously the Left takes this guy and his campaign. But its not just the Left. If you listen to just about every journalist out there, including conservative journalists, its pretty clear that all of them, for whatever reason, want Cain and his candidacy to disappear. The Washington wonks are wetting their pants over this guys numbers in the polls. Imagine if a guy like him, with lots of life experience and virtually no political experience, was actually elected. Their heads are spinning. So what do they do? What they do is, straight up, a high-tech lynching.

Jonathan Martin of Politico is the one who broke the story of Cain and the sexual harrassment from 15 years ago. That was a week ago, and 94 stories later they still dont have any more details (facts) than they had on day one. No wonder they call these sleezeballs the drive-by media. Heres what they have: Two unnamed female National Restaurant Assn employees lodged sexual harrassment complaints against Cain when he served as head of the trade association from 1996 to 1999. One reportedly received $45,000 while the other received $35,000. They dont have names and they dont have details.

No one knows what Cain was accused of doing. No one knows anything about the credibility of his accusers. One of the women was released from her confidentiality agreement by the NRA, but her lawyer, Joel Bennett, who is speaking for her in the media, has said that the unnamed woman sees no value in revealing additional details. As reported by the New York Post, the Restaurant Assn and the first woman entered into an agreement to resolve the matter without admission of liability. Mr. Cain was not party to that agreement.  The second accuser was a short-term employee, according to the NYTimes, who reportedly (dont you love those weasle words?) received the severance pay because she was uncomfortable working for Cain.

As Lawyer Bennett told reporters, Theres an expression: Where theres smoke, theres fire. Lawyer Bennett was quoted as saying that the fact there is more than one accusation is meaningful. Seriously? How about the fact that there was a second accusation shows that someone decided she could get an easy cash settlement by piling on? Isnt that scenario at least as credible?

What they have is a five-figure settlement involving the CEO of a major corporation. A five-figure settlement, somewhere in the range of $35,000 to $45,000, is what it would take in lawyers fees to go to court and win a baseless harrassment suit. Harrassment suits are often resolved with the input of insurance companies, who have the power to force the insured to agree to settle or face loss of coverage. Its a legalized combination of blackmail and fraud, created by trial lawyers, insurance companies, and the courts.

Now the first woman, through Lawyer Bennett, has decided she wants to shield herself from the media frenzy. Lawyer Bennett: She has a life to live and a career, and she doesnt want to become another Anita Hill.

Jonathan Martin, the Politico hack who broke the story, was interviewed at MSNBC. When asked, What did Cain do? Martin replied: We have to be careful about that, obviously, because we are sensitive to the sourcing involved here. The MSNBC sycophant interviewing him nods his head seriously at that point. And also--what actually happened to these women as well--we want to be sensitive to that too. He says the women felt uncomfortable and unhappy about their treatment. We are just not going to get into the details of what happened with these women besides whats in the story. Breitbarts video of Martin talking on MSNBC is here.

Breaking News: It has been revealed that Jonathan Martin has been accused of untoward activity with a herd of goats in his basement. Details will not be forthcoming, however, as we want to be careful and sensitive to the sourcing involved here (that is, the goats). The lawyer for the goats has come out with a statement, saying that his clients see no value in discussing the incident further; however, said the lawyer, since there have been multiple accusations from the herd, the accusations are, of course, meaningful.

Some people are beginning to say that the media has overplayed its hand on this story about Cain. Do you think?

Noel Sheppard at NewsBusters writes that CNN in the past six days has also done at least 94 reports on the sexual harrassment allegations involving Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain, while they did a total of 77 stories on Democratic candidate Barack Obama and his ties to domestic terrorist Bill Ayers, convicted real estate developer Tony Rezko, and America-hating Rev. Jeremiah Wright. Sheppard asks, Would Obama be president today if CNN had covered his scandals with the same gusto its now reporting Cains?

John Nolte at Big Journalism asks, How much is too much? And oh by the way, Nolte has looked at Politicos search engine and found that there have been fewer than 40 stories, total, about the Fast and Furious scandal since it broke months ago. Nolte continues, can we all come together and at least agree that the punishment doesnt fit the crime? Unnamed sources hurling unknown allegations from over a decade ago and Politico launches the story as though its *Watergate Two: The Reckoning* and does so quite intentionally on a Sunday night during a week when Cain has a number of high-profile appearances scheduled.

I agree with Nolte, who says I don’t know if Cain is guilty of what he’s accused of. Hell, I don’t even know what he’s been accused of other than making a few women uncomfortable and what Politico themselves described as gestures of “a non-sexual nature.” What I do know are the facts I see above, and they all point to a coordinated attempt to take out another one of our candidates with an unprecedented media assault.

Politico and their MSM counterparts treat us like political enemies. Unless we want four more years of Obama, I suggest we return the favor. Amen to that, brother.

Update. Cain leads the Republican presidential field by 15 percentage points in Iowa, according to a new poll taken four days after news broke of accusations of sexual harrassment. Among Iowa GOP caucus-goers, Cain has 30%, Romney 15%, Newt Gingrich 12%, Ron Paul 9%, Michelle Bachmann 8%, Rick Perry 6% and our hero from the Sunday talk shows, RINO Jon Huntsman bringing up the elephants rear end at 2%.

The poll indicates that Iowans react to the unnamed sources with their unknown allegations with one big yawn. It also says, and Washington Wonks might want to take note of this, that candidates who have spent more time and have better organization in Iowa have fared worse than Herman Cain.

Update #2. Just one example of a Washington wonk dismissing Cain and his supporters. Bill Kristol was on Fox News Sunday yesterday, where he said that regardless of his popularity and whether or not the harrassment scandal will hurt or help him, Herman Cain was never going to be the Republican nominee. He calls the support for Cain a symbol of conservative and Republican distrust of the frontrunners, a willingness to reward someone for being bold, for being an outsider--but the air is going to slowly go out of the Herman Cain bubble.

Update #3. Gloria Alred just came out with her client, a woman who says Cain grabbed for her genitals (what--you mean he missed?), although she never filed a complaint. So is this how its done? Is this how we take down EVERY CANDIDATE not acceptible to the mainstream media? We just find somone to accuse them of sexual harrassment and then say--well, if its not true, then prove that its not true. For the love of God. A country gets the government it deserves. If we let the left do this to us, and then choose our candidate for us, then we DESERVE to have Barack Hussein Obama re-elected to a second term and then watch him take apart this country piece by piece. Maybe when the left is finished destroying this country, then we can stand back and watch while they destroy each other.I have an idea--move to Texas, and then vote for seccession.

Update #4. The accuser from yesterday is named Sharon Bialek, from Chicago. The statement Cain released is here. Unfortunately, I dont see how Cain recovers from this one. Gloria Allred is a piece of work. Shes the same person who brought Meg Whitmans undocumented housekeeper before the cameras; Whitman subsequently lost the gubernatorial election. Allreds quote is priceless: If all of these allegations are true, then I for one am disgusted at Mr. Cains serial sexual harassment of women. So if they are not true. . . how exactly would Cain prove that? Regardless, I think the man is toast.

I dont mean to be catty here, but Allred couldnt have found a better candidate to put a *face* on these accusations if she had chosen this woman from central casting. This is from the website Free Republic: We have been doing internet searches on Sharon Bialek. Her linkedin and all social networking/employer networking sites where her name appears seem to have been scrubbed. When you are telling the truth, why make the attempt to scrub your past? It doesnt prove anything, but its an interesting factoid nonetheless.

Last night someone had the Rachel Maddow show turned on so loudly in another room that I couldnt ignore it. (If you listen to Maddow without watching her, she sounds like a crazy person, by the way. Maybe she sounds like a crazy person even if you do watch her, although I wouldnt know because I dont watch her show.) Anyway, I heard someone on the show say, Weve gotten rid of Donald Trump; weve gotten rid of Michelle Bachmann; weve gotten rid of Rick Perry; now weve gotten rid of Herman Cain (oh, and dont forget, you also got rid of Sarah Palin). Whos next?

Update #5. OK, heres NUMBER FIVE: Fifth woman raises questions about Cains behavior. And so it goes. What she has to say is even less than he-said, she-said. Its less than nothing, except that something about Cain made her uncomfortable--but this is how Republican candidates will be taken down from now on--dont doubt me.

Update #6. OK, Im going to stop with the updates and just continue on. This is Tuesday morning, and Im thinking we are going to hear about this all day long.

This is from the Chicago Sun-Times: Witness: Cain accuser hugged him during Tea Party meeting a month ago. The upshot of the article is that someone witnessed Sharon Bialeks encounter with Cain last month in Chicago. This morning where naturally shes having a high time making the rounds of the morning shows, she says, I shook his hand, and he remembered me. He looked a little uncomfortable. Contrary to Bialeks statement, the witness says they hugged each other backstage in a full embrace like old friends. Then she grabbed his arm and whispered in his ear. The witness is WIND radio co-host Amy Jacobson. She said when she turned on her TV to see who was accusing Cain, I almost fell over. . . . I was surprised to hear she claims she did not know Cain was going to be there, since the witness recalls that Bialek was hell bent on going backstage . . . where she cornered him. The encounter looked sort of flirtatious. . . . I had no idea what they were talking about, but she was inches from his ear. This witness says she had encountered Bialek at the bar earlier in the evening, where she said she was anxious to meet Cain again and had once gone to an afterparty with him and her boyfriend years ago.

The money line from the article: Bialek has since applied for employment in sales at WIND radio and is scheduled for a second interview Thursday.

Evidently there are plenty of people in Chicago who know this Sharon Bialek. As they say, she has a history. Right now shes having a grand old time making the rounds in New York City. I just saw her on the Today show, her tarted up look from yesterday toned down a bit for the morning crowd. This morning she also appeared on CNN, ABCs Good Morning America, and CBSs The Early Show.

She just showed up on Fox News, so obviously shes not done yet.

Also early this morning, the pushback against this woman has begun. Bill Kurtis, a prominent Chicago radio personality, says that given her track record, if you put Sharon and Herman together in the car at the same time, the roles may even have been reversed. She has a history. I can assure you there will be far more to the story. Theres a lot more to the story and its just developing.

You can hear Bill Kurtis at WLS this morning. So he says the woman has a history, if you put Sharon and Herman together in the car, the roles may actually have been reversed as to who was the aggressor, based on her past conduct. Hilarious, since what Kurtis is doing here is pretty much what Politico and others did to Cain for a solid week--a hit job based on speculation and innuendo.

A website called LegalInsurrection is all over this. Heres another website, MacsMind: Sharon Bailek [sic], Remembered by a co-worker as a time-waster and rabble-rouser. If she didnt get her way she cried sexual harassment. Now that comes from an anonymous email source--at least I dont have a name for the person who wrote that email, but as we know from the Left, its the seriousness of the charge that counts, and that seems pretty serious to me. Sharon, can you prove what this person wrote about you isnt true?

I have a question: If Bialek wanted to talk to Herman Cain about a job, why didnt she ask for a meeting in his office?



Tuesday, November 01, 2011

NRA to Holder: Resign!

The National Rifle Association is calling for Attorney General Eric Holder to resign over Operation Fast and Furious. His part in the scandal can be summed up this way: either 1) a lethally irresponsible knowledge (and presumed authorization of the program) or 2) a lethally irresponsible ignorance of the program. Either way, Holder needs to go.

No surprise, Obama has come out and said he has complete confidence in his attorney general. Big O might want to rethink that stance. As late as this past October, Obama stated that Holder indicated he was not aware of what was happening in Fast and Furious, and then added, Certainly, I was not. Certainly. Maybe you have spent too many hours on the golf course, Barry, instead of paying attention to what is going on in your own administration.

Roger Aranoff, editor of Accuracy in Media, has written a commentary wondering: Will Fast and Furious Topple Obama and Holder? The October 21 article begins: As much as the media have tried shielding the Obama administration from responsibility for corruption and malfeasance, the combined weight of the fallout from the Solyndra fiasco and the Operation Fast and Furious scandal have begun taking a serious toll on the administration.

Aranoff says that many times when scandal hits, it is the coverup rather than the wrongdoing that eventually takes down a politician: example, Richard Nixon and Watergate, Bill Clinton and Lewinsky, and of course our recent friend, Anthony Weiner and WeinerGate. However, in some cases, the crime or the lapse in judgement is definitely worse than the coverup. That appears to be the case in the simmering scandal, Operation Fast and Furious, engulfing the Obama administration that the mainstream media have tried their best to ignore for many months.

Aranoff goes on in the article to give an excellent synopsis of F&F, tells about the one person in the mainstream media who has been reporting on the program, Sharyl Attkisson of CBS News, and give details of Holders testimony before Congress where he later stated he misunderstood the question. (OK, then, Eric, that is proof enough for me that you are not up to holding the office.) Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA), chairman of the House Government Oversight Committee, has publicly accused Holder of a lack of trustworthiness.

Holder will appear before the Senate Judiciary Committee next Tuesday, November 8, where it is hoped Holder will be asked to explain the multiple documents and memos addressed to him in 2010 about the program--and how he squares that information with his testimony that he only knew about the program in May of 2011. Holder has explained in a letter to Congress that he did not read those memos. Seriously? You know, Eric, that excuse might work if you are an affirmative action scholar at Columbia, but it doesnt work in the real world. Really.

Senator Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the ranking member of that committee, has been investigating the program since last January. Previously Sen. Grassley has accused Eric Holders Justice Department of a cover-up by limiting information to Congress. Grassley has been working closely on the matter with Rep. Darrell Issa. Both Grassley and Issa have complained about the slow document production, excessive redaction in the documents that have been given to the committee, as well as alleged misinformation from the Justice Department. Said Issa: There are two kinds of coverups. There is one in which you lie to people in order to mislead them. There is also one in which you delay and deny in an attempt to simply not have the facts come out. Issa has called the redaction excessive. We have the unredacted versions from the whistleblowers. We believe they did excess redacting, which again is denying us that which would be reasonable to deliver to us. We are hoping that has changed. We hope that...there is in fact a change in the administrations view in order not to be embarrassed.

Currently there are 17 congressional representatives calling for Holder to resign. Now we can also add the National Rifle Association, which has launched a national campaign calling for Holders resignation. Call the president and tell him you want Holder to be held accountable.

Update. The Holder resignation drumbeat is getting louder. Eleven more congressmen have called for Holders resignation, bringing the total up to 28 members as of the end of Monday. They want him to resign immediately. So late Monday, the Justice Department responded by dumping more than 650 pages about Operation Fast & Furious on congressional investigators. Read the article at The Daily Caller.

Update #2. For more about the corruption and ineptitude of the ObamaTeam (TM) Justice Department headed by Attorney General Eric Holder, read the new book by whistleblower J. Christian Adams, Injustice: Exposing the Racial Agenda of the Obama Justice Department.

Note: My single and double apostrophe key isnt working, so until its fixed, this site will have to be written without the apostrophe and quotation marks. For some, thats no big deal; for me, the misuse and abuse of the apostrophe is one of my pet hates. Oh woe.

Thursday, October 27, 2011

Listen up, Obama: I will not pay for Suzy Creamcheese's
$212,000 George Washington University "Education"


Obama is bailing out the current student loan crowd, by executive order. Or in other words, he hopes to buy as many votes as possible in 2012 from the 33 million voters who are under 30.

Here's how it works. Sad, sad Suzy Creamcheese decided to major in Art History at George Washington University, borrowing $212,000. Evidently Suzy was not conversant with the meaning of the term "borrow." Since her Art History degree makes her virtually unemployable in her field, Suzy decides to heed Big O's call for public service where she takes a service job making $25,000 a year (recall, Suzy has a debt of $212,000, which doesn't even count the credit card debt she ran up when she was living large for four years at school).

Enter Obama with his new plan to bail out the 36 million "students" with school loans. Under his plan, based on her income, Suzy's payments will be limited to $1,411 a year after the $10,890 of poverty-level income is subtracted from her total exposure. Unlike Obama and his Team (TM), and also I'm just guessing, unlike Suzy, who voluntarily took out the $212,000 loan to attend four years at college, I can do math. Since O's plan will limit the life of the loan to 20 years, and since Suzy will be paying less than $1,500 per year on the loan, that means that taxpayers (that is, you and me) will recoup from our little Suzy a grand total of $28,220 on her $212,000 loan. HEY KIDS, FREE MONEY! How cool is that?

Can I get a deal like this? I want to buy a $212,000 second home. I want to pay about $100 a month for it, and I'd really like my obligation for paying off the loan to end after 20 years, because after all, by that time I'll be up in years and I'll want to be spending my money on other things. I'll have paid off less than $30,000 on that loan, but I think that should be plenty. So what government program can I sign up for that will cut me that deal?

Now if Suzy can also get Obama to give her a plan by executive order to forgive her credit card debt, she will be in jake shape. That shouldn't be hard, since Obama's justification for the student bailout is this: since these nitwits will now have more money to spend every month (save?--are you stupid?), that money will juice the economy. So just forgive all their debt why don't you, Barry, and then our economy will burn right along.

Obama, you fracking jerk. And yet we have no one but ourselves to blame, as he told us he was going to fundamentally change this country.

h/t to Chris Stirewait for the numbers at "Obama Taps Taxpayers for Student Loans," FoxNews.com.

Update. It's all here at Michelle Obama's Mirror's Blog, the best blog in the blogosphere. Hi-larious, if you can stop crying.

Update #2. See the article A college-loan scam posted at the New York Post. The staggering inflation in the cost of higher education since the federal government got involved in lending money to Americans for college in 1965 beggars description. One federal study found that between 1982 and 2007, tuition costs rose 432 percent while family income rose only 147 percent.

Thursday, October 20, 2011

"Who Are You With?" --Seriously?

Jason Mattera from Human Events, asking Biden if he regretted the rape language he used when defending O's "jobs" bill. Clearly Biden doesn't like isn't used to being asked the tough questions. Look at the finger-poke to the chest that he gives to Mattera: "Don't screw around with me." But the best line comes at the very end, when the screechy-voiced woman Biden-handler asks Mattera, "Who are you with?"



Hilariously, Biden's "defense" of O's bill is that "murder is up, rape is up, burglarly is up." So crime is "up" in the Obama administration, according to Joe Biden. The O administration is admitting here that their law enforcement efforts are so bad that crime is up on their watch. This stuff just writes itself for the Republicans. Uncle Joe, you're a gaffe a minute!

Tuesday, October 18, 2011

Delicious Irony of the Day (maybe the whole year)

I know, I said I couldn't post on these OWS maroons, but seriously, this article from the NYPost is just too good to pass up: "Thieves preying on fellow protesters." And these people who are occupying someone else's property and say they have no intention of leaving are SHOCKED that someone is stealing their stuff.

Oh, boo hoo. Who could have seen this coming? "Packs of brazen crooks" have infiltrated the WTF/OWS, robbing their "fellow demonstrators" of pricey cameras, phones, laptops, donated cash, and food. One of them was whining that she had her $5,500 Mac stolen. Another was robbed of his "special bed" that he'd brought with him because of his bad back. No, you can't make this stuff up.

Security volunteer Harry Wyman, 22, has "vowed to get tough" with the predators. What's he going to do--whine them into submission? Gee, here's an idea: CALL THE COPS. I bet they'll be happy to rush right down and help out. Your best bet might be to ask Obama to send some goons who will beat beat up these thieves so that you don't have to get your precious little hands dirty. RENDITION FOR OWS! Heh.

So here's a question: Why aren't these people thrilled about fellow demonstrators taking what they "need"? You would think that they would be happy to be "giving something back" to people who obviously don't have what they have. From each according to their ability; to each according to their need. Right? Obviously the guy who stole the $5,500 Mac didn't have one and needed the one he found on the ground, so he took it. So what's her complaint, exactly? She wants to take money out of my pocket because she "needs" it to pay for her college loans, so how is people "taking" money, cash, beds, phones, etc. from her any different? Oh, and what's the chance that she actually paid for that Mac out of money from a student loan that she never intends to repay? I'm guessing about 99%.

Update. As long as I'm posting about the P-OWS, I might as well post a link to an article at American Thinker: "OWS links." Thomas Lifson has written this article, saying that the movement is a "serious, orchestrated effort, promoted by media anxious to counter the growth of the tea parties. It bears the closest possible scrutiny."

In the article are links for these categories:

Jew Hatred
Violence
Filth
Profanity
Drone Drumming
Misc. Stupidity, Absurdity, Debauchery, Hypocrisy &/Or Irony
MSM Coverage
Commentary
Financial Cost
Endorsement/Support from Public Officials & Others
Endorsements from Repressive Dictators & Dubious Groups/Individuals
Revolution to Overthrow Our Government
OWS Fundraising & Commercialization
Counter Movement: 53%

Sunday, October 16, 2011

I simply cannot post about these juvenile, smelly whiners
who are "occupying" Wall Street. I cannot do it.

Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Obama's Presidency Is Imploding

Now if only the MSM would report on it--but make no mistake, with the help of the MSM or not, O is going down. And the MSM can go down right along with him, as far as I'm concerned. Reading around the internet about what's going on with the Obama administration these days, it's possible to believe he won't even last until 2012.

This morning Drudge has a picture perfect example of the difference three years makes in people's attitudes about our Affirmative Action President.

Here's an Obama rally, Pittsburgh 2008:













And here's the latest Obama rally, Pittsburgh 2011. The difference is so obvious, even oblivious, narcissistic O must be able to see it.













An article came out in the Washington Post the other day titled "Obama, the loner president." It could just as easily been titled "Obama the Loser." If you read the entire article, you get the impression that the young writer (Scott Wilson) was trying in some way to compliment, or at the very least, excuse O for his very odd style, "enduring with little joy" the people smarts that most politicians are so good at. The article begins well enough, but then it veers off onto a course where he seems to be trying to excuse O's strange behavior. The article was mainly confused and very much inside-the-beltway twaddle. However, it's interesting that any such article would appear in the WP.

A better article is one posted today at American Thinker: "The Obama Problem," by Monty Pelerin. "President Obama's political career is in free-fall. He will not be reelected. Many Democrats and media personalities now understand what appeared impossible even mere months ago. . . . To put matters in perspective, it took George Bush almost eight years to hit bottom. And Bush always had little support from the media, a force that continues to protect Obama." The article continues: "President Obama is little more than a run-of-the-mill Hollywood extra hired to play president of the United States. A brilliant marketing campaign coupled with the perfect storm put him in office. . . . the "man with no past." .... Obama's only strength was Axelrod's ability to play on the imagination of voters. That strength no longer exists. . . . Richard Nixon was never liked, but he was at least thought competent. Obama was liked but was never competent." etc.

Then recently there was a very disturbing piece about Obama becoming increasingly isolated, even within his own administration: "Aimless Obama walks alone," in the New York Post. "The reports are not good, disturbing even. I have heard basically the same story four times in the last 10 days, and the people doing the talking are in New York and Washington and are spread across the political spectrum. The gist is this: President Obama has become a lone wolf, a stranger to his own government. He talks mostly, and sommetimes only, to friend and advisor Valerie Jarrett and to David Axelrod, his political strategist." This sort of thing makes a person hope that there are people responsible for watching this guy and GETTING HIM OUT if his pathology gets out of control.

Then there's the current Ulsterman Report from White House Insider: "They Are Cumbling in Amongst Themselves." At first these reports from Ulsterman were simply amusing; however, as the things reported on were found more and more to be true, the credibility of these reports has increased along with their very troubling nature. "Regarding the dynamics of the White House at this time it is same as it ever was which is batsh-t crazy 24/7 there." He paints a portrait of Michelle Obama that is hardly flattering (no surprise): "those inside know she is as big a potential liability as anything associated with the administration. They are using her in controlled environments only. That's the word from on high." --Which goes along with yesterday's report that FLOTUS was leading a "jumping jacks" challenge out on the White House South Lawn. I mean really, I guess she can't get herself or the administration into too much trouble doing that. Just once I would like to see this woman interacting with a white child. Consistently, however, she is shown surrounded only by non-white children. It hardly matters, though, since this woman has made herself such an irrelevancy with her "fashion icon" status, her expensive trips taken at taxpayers' expense, and her refusal to engage in any meaningful way with her position as First Lady. Seriously, who would have thought that the nation's first African American First Lady would be such a nonentity?

Here she is doing her "Eleanor Roosevelt does exercise" imitation. Seriously, what's with that hair? The Black Eleanor Roosevelt is the only thing that comes to mind. Michelle, you are no Eleanor Roosevelt.

Update. The news this morning, Wednesday, is that Rep. Darrell Issa has subpoenaed Att Gen Eric Holder in the "Fast and Furious" investigation. Issa's letter to holder was nuclear. Now this: "Top Justice Department officials, including Attorney General Holder, know more about Operation Fast and Furious than they have publicly acknowledged," Issa's statement read. "The documents this subpoena demands will provide answers to questions that Justice officials have tried to avoid since this investigation began eight months ago. It's time we know the whole truth."

Then there's an article about another failed solar panel company that received government funds: "SunPower: Twice as Bad as Solyndra, Twice as Bad for Obama." This failing company received a $1.2 billion federal loan guarantee. Just how many failures and scandals does it take to remove a Democrat president? I guess we'll find out.


Wednesday, October 05, 2011

Radical, Out-of-control, Obscenity-slinging Tea Partiers
Inflict Their Racist Torch Parade on St. Louis /


And here's an example of one of the extremists in the crowd. h/t to Jim Hoft at GatewayPundit for the photo.

President Obama came to our town last night to raise more dough for his re-election campaign. Good thing Obama doesn't have a day job, since we know what kind of a work ethic the guy has--you wouldn't expect him to be working night and day, would you? Tom Carnahan, brother of failed Senate candidate Robin and Representative Russ Carnahan, spawn of a well-connected Missouri Democrat family (children of Mel Carnahan, former Missouri governor and the Widow Carnahan, who replaced her husband--oh, those Carnahans), hosted a $25,000-per-person fundraiser on Tuesday night at his home in St. Louis city. Tom Carnahan was awarded $107 million of stimulus dollars for his Missouri wind farm, Lost Creek Farm, so the fundraiser was a "Thank you, Obama" event--or "pay for play," if you will.

The St. Louis Tea Party was there to greet the President.

Rush Limbaugh, a Missouri native, was all over the Carnahan fundraiser, calling it a "money laundering operation. Tom Carnahan gets money from Obama for a fake solar company and then hosts a fundraiser for Obama. . . . So what Obama has done, and numerous times, is generate campaign contributions that are taxpayer dollars." You can read the entire transcript of Lindbaugh's remarks here.

Update. In a related story, discounted access to First Lady Michael Obama is being sold for an upcoming D.C. fundraiser for Barry Soetoro's re-election campaign. Originally asking $1,000, access to the self-absorbed FLOTUS has been marked down to $250. "Make a contribution of any amount today so your commitment can be represented in the financials that pundits will be dissecting in the weeks ahead." Snort.

Saturday, October 01, 2011

TeaCon Midwest this Weekend

If you haven't heard about it, this is what's going on this weekend in Chicago: TeaCon Midwest, bringing together "Tea Party activists, conservatives, and like-minded citizens from around the Midwest for a unique event that will seek to educate, inspire, and activate."

Here's a link at HotAir to the kickoff by Steven Crowder. This guy is hilarious and of course politically incorrect, which evidently continues to twist up the sad sacks on the Left who have no sense of humor about themselves or anyone else, judging from what they have to say about him.

Don't even bother googling "teacon midwest 2011," since Google will take you to HuffingtonPost, which of course is exactly my go-to site for information about this event. Google sucks.

Thursday, September 29, 2011

If you have work...

...don't whine, work hard, do a good job...even if it isn't the job of your dreams. There are a whole lot of people out there who would be happy to take your job.

Cripes, this is starting to remind me a whole lot of 1974--and then after that we got Carter. For those too young to remember those nasty, bad times--you're lucky.

Chris Christie's Address at the Reagan Library

It seems a shame that what Christie had to say the other night has been overshadowed by the "will he-won't he" BS in the media. If you've forgotten what a leader looks like because of the inexperienced whackjob in the White House, watch Christie speak.

"It is a simple but powerful message," said Christie. "Lead on the tough issues by telling your citizens the truth about the depth of our challenges." Christie said that Obama hasn't found the courage to lead, and he labeled Obama a "bystander in the Oval Office" who is dividing the country to "achieve re-election." He was similarly critical of Congress.

"When there is a problem, you fix it...and you can't wait for someone else to do it when you're in the Oval Office."

Here's the text.

Here's a video of the speech.

Friday, September 23, 2011

Is there any good news out there?

This was the Dow's worst week since October 2008.



Wednesday, September 21, 2011

Solargate

I'm a news junkie, and I remember well when the whole Watergate mess was unfolding, the hearings being held, and finally when Nixon was forced to resign. It never seemed inevitable, at the time, that Nixon would have to go.

I'm starting to hear a drumbeat in the media: Barack Obama is in more trouble with this Solyndra mess than he thinks. Political survival trumps loyalty. The Democrats know that their careers are on the line if they can't do something about this inept Obamafraud before 2012, and in the Solyndra debacle they may have found the answer to their problem.

Here's an article at American Thinker by Monty Pelerin: "Will Scandal Drive Obama Off the 2012 Ticket? "The reality is that Obama is spent. His false magic is no longer. He has become a cartoon figure to many Americans and more foreigners. Familiarity has produced contempt. He is a fraud, a man who never was anything other than a carefully scripted and wonderfully executed marketing campaign. . . . Snake oil is never purchased a second time." Perelin says a tipping point for this president has been reached "in the last month or so. The myth of Obama has ended. There is now open talk from the media that Obama cannot win in 2012."

Perelin says, and I think it makes perfect sense, that the mainstram media isn't interested in covering for a failed candidate. They have to realize how much credibility they've lost in the minds of their consumers of news: "The press is more interested in saving what credibility they have left, rather than justifying an increasingly indefensible and broken presidency." Perlerin believes that entrepreneurs within journalism's ranks are likely to focus on filling in the blanks of Obama's missing past. "Now that it is acceptable to attack, if not destroy, the fallen hero, look for lots of new information to come out. . . . This is a very dangerous time for the president."

Pelerin links to a very interesting website in his article at zerohedge.com: "Why was Congress forced to subpoena head of Obama's Budget Office to get info on Solyndra?" Be sure to check out the slideshow. Those slides are devastating for ObamaTeam.

Here's a Reuter's article about crony capitalism and Solyndra: "Solyndra, the logical endpoint of Obamanomics." --"At its core, Obamanomics is about the top-down redistribution of wealth and income. Government spending on various "green" subsidies and programs, along with a cap-and-trade system to limit carbon emissions, would enrich key Democrat constituencies: lawyers, public sector unions, academia, and non-profits. . . . Obamanomics, essentially, would divert taxpayer dollars to the Green Lobby--and then into the campaign coffers of the Democratic Party. . . . And Obama almost pulled it off." It's a great read.

Here's Andrew C. McCarthy at National Review Online: "The Solyndra Fraud." --"The Solyndra debacle is not just Obama-style crony socialism as usual. It is criminal fraud." McCarthy goes on to describe the "sweetheart deal" signed off on by the Obama Energy Department--"cozily connected private investors would be given priority over American taxpayers" when the company went belly-up. And as McCarthy points out, criminal law targets anyone who attempts to influence the issuance of government loans by making false statements. "The penalties are steep: Fraud in connection with government loans, for example, can be punished by up to 30 years in the slammer." This long article is a must-read for understanding just how much trouble Solyndra may be, not just for people in Obama's administration, but for Obama himself.

How does it end? asks Perlerin. "My guess is that investigations go forward and are used to leverage Obama out of office. He will 'choose' not to run for reelection. He understands Chicago-style politics, even when he is on the wrong end."