Obama's record

From Drudge:

8.1%
+96,000
FED SET TO PUMP
368,000 DROPPED OUT
88,921,000 'NOT IN LABOR FORCE'

I'M NOT DONE YET...

Need anything more be said?

The Jawa Report: Ironic Statement Of The Day

The Jawa Report: Ironic Statement Of The Day
And a nice illustration of liberal hypocrisy:

Sen. Chuck Schumer is calling on the Justice Department to investigate so-called "Stand Your Ground" laws following the fatal shooting of an unarmed Florida teen. [...] "These laws seem to be encouraging vigilantism by allowing individuals to use deadly force as a first resort," Schumer, D-N.Y., said in a statement.
Schumer asked Holder's department to probe whether the laws "are creating more violence than they are preventing," and whether potential murders are "going unprosecuted" because of them.
Senator Schumer had no comments about the $10,000 bounty the New Black Panthers have put on the head of George Zimmerman. The racist group hopes to increase the bounty to $1,000,000 through donations, mostly from black entertainers who support the call for vigilante justice.

H/T @Publicrelations

Anyone have Spike Lees address?

Soooooo, what ELSE is in the bill?

BWAAAAAHhhahahahahahahahahahaa!

Congress didn't read their own bill and now THEY may not even have their own cushy health care program....

Congress strips themselves of health care?

I guess Nancy Pelosi had to pass it in order to find out what was in it. Hopefully, they are screwed.

If the GOP had any cojones, they would go buy private insurance and make this an election point.


BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

Only 36000 ADDITIONAL jobs

Fixed it for ya Harry!




Even in Bob Hope's day, people like Reid were known:

So What Kind of Change Can We Expect?

Family Security Matters

How would Barack Hussein Obama govern if elected to the presidency? With less than one term as a U.S. senator, and with most of that time having been spent running for president, it’s a little hard to say but there are certainly some good indicators. There is no question that Obama is very liberal (the most liberal U.S. senator, based on a National Journal vote ranking). With a voting record in line with folks like John Kerry, Ted Kennedy, Barbara Boxer et al, an Obama presidency would certainly mean more government “solutions” to our problems. We already have plenty of that now, so the only “change” would be more of the same – except in greater quantities.

What about defending our borders? Millions of illegal aliens are now in this country draining our resources, closing down hospitals that can no longer afford to provide them free treatment, demanding we learn Spanish rather than they learning English, depositing “anchor babies” on our soil who immediately become citizens and “entitled” to gobs of goodies at taxpayer expense. The Bush Administration has done nothing to impede the flow, and it is quite evident Obama – “the agent of change” – will do nothing either. Obama actually agrees with the illegals by the way, and thinks your children should learn Spanish. Sounds like more of the same, only pushed absurdly even further.

What about increasing oil supplies? We could start lifting these restrictions on drilling for our own oil and building refineries, and the price of oil would go down. It has the added benefit of decreasing our dependence on the Middle East. For years, our own government has kept us dependent on OPEC, rather than looking for ways to become self-reliant. Barack Obama is opposed to drilling offshore or in ANWR. Change? Sounds like more of the same to me…

What about out of control judges who legislate from the bench? Courts packed with liberal judges have been pushing liberal causes down our throats for some time now. What types of judges would Obama appoint? He has spoken glowing words of praise for Stephen G. Breyer, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and David H. Souter. Not exactly my idea of strict constructionists who follow the intent of the constitution. With more of these types being added to federal courts that are already chock full of liberals, we’d be getting, yes – more of the same.

How Have House Democrats Performed Their First Year?

Except for the "No action on the mortgage crisis" this is great!

The government has no business in fixing the "mortgage crisis."

Buying a house is not like buying a pack of gum. You sign that mortgage, its YOUR problem.

If you can't pay it, sell.

Quagmire in Iraq - We Must Retreat........

"We're floundering in a quagmire in Iraq. Our strategy is flawed, and it's too late to change it. Our resources have been squandered, our best people killed, we're hated by the natives and our reputation around the world is circling the drain. We must withdraw."

Who said this? Senator Reid? Cindy Sheehan? Nancy Pelosi?

Nope.

Go read it.

I told you so.

Henry Waxman = Joe McCarthy

Separated at birth?

except Ol' Joe actually did have commies in powerful positions......Oops. Still do.
Rep. (D) Henry Waxman has decided to use his power of investigation and the full power of the government to "monitor" Talk Radio, ie., Rush, Hannity, and Levin. So, the libs were right. Innocent private citizens are going to be investigated by the government. Are bloggers next?
(still think that there's no difference in the parties? Support whichever candidate wins the primaries!)

Via The American Spectator:

Others on the Democrat side are pushing ahead with other plans. Rep. Henry Waxman has asked his investigative staff to begin compiling reports on Limbaugh, and fellow radio hosts Sean Hannity and Mark Levin based on transcripts from their shows, and to call in Federal Communications Commission chairman Kevin Martin to discuss the so-called "Fairness Doctrine."

"Limbaugh isn't the only one who needs to be made uncomfortable about what he says on the radio," says a House leadership source. "We don't have as big a megaphone as these guys, but this all political, and we'll do what we can to gain the advantage. If we can take them off their game for a while, it will help our folks out there on the campaign trail."

Hey senator! WE'RE AT WAR! GET A CLUE!

Senator Obama, while respecting the General and Ambassador's efforts, he insists that the surge and continuing ops in Iraq are not worth the cost. By cherry picking the idea the improvement in Anbar and the standdown by the Sadr militia happened prior to the surge and therefore was not related to a military effort but to political efforts, he states that the surge is not worth the cost and has had only a moderate effect.

Why do the Democrats refuse to see that the military effort and the political effort are inextricably intertwined? And just as important, if not more so, is a COMMITMENT to see a conflict through to the end, WITH OUR ALLIES. If the enemy and allies do not see that we are steadfast in the military effort, then they will not respond to any political efforts. If the senate is confused as to why the Iraqi gov't does not immediately make the "hard" decisions that "benefit" us, they have to remember that THEY have to stay there! If we are not going to stay there, then why SHOULDN'T they make accommodations with the terrorists, including Iran and Syria.

Why does victory have to be "cost effective" but domestic spending does not? When was the last time you saw a liberal figure the cost effectiveness of medicare, social security, welfare, etc?
In fact, every freaking democrat senator (small case on purpose, I have no more respect for these asses) insists on asking, in one form or another, "What's the time line to leave?" When can we arbitrarily leave? If the democrats are going to continue to criticise the time it takes to train the Iraqi army, they must educate themselves on what that entails. What does it take to create a modern army from scratch? What does it take to create an NCO corps?

One idiot senator could not understand why the "statistics" of the Iraqi force improvements had not shown "improvement." He had to be REMINDED THAT THOSE FORCES WERE BEING KILLED AND NEW REPLACEMENTS WERE BEING PUT INTO THE UNIT!

Senator Webb, harped on his idea of changing the rotation of the troops, to provide them with more time home, continuously asking Gen'l Patraeus if he agrees with the present troop rotation, trying to get him to commit himself, inappropriately, to actual numbers. The general repeated that he did ask for raised troop levels. That is the responsibility of the Congress. Long rotations are troublesome, but its been proven that, if you use many short rotations, MORE troops die! Because there are more green troops in country. It takes time to get familiar with the combat theater.

Senator Joe Biden, just stated that if we level with the American people, he sees, according to the evidence presented, that we will have troops in country at least for a few more years. Pre- surge levels next summer and then "about two more years after that." He "just doesn't see how we can bring this to an early and honorable end." In other words, he got his freaking timeline and disagrees with it. Reality is hitting the appeasers right in the face.

The democrat senators continue to wonder why its been so hard to accomplish things politically in Iraq. I can't figure that one out. Maybe its because every other word out of the senate collective mouth is " When to we leave? Its not worth it." Why don't the Iraqis do such and such? Well, hell, why doesn't the CONGRESS cooperate with each other in all things? Nobody is KILLING THEM over "POLICY DIFFERENCES!"

Senator Cardin of Maryland thinks that we need more "diplomatic" strength; that the "international community" is refusing to help in Iraq because they don't like our military policy. Who the hell are we supposed to talk to that we're not talking to now? We're not stopping any "international" groups from helping? Why don't the senators listen to the UN when they said they were leaving because they found out that AQI will KILL THEM TOO. They WANT our forces to provide security. While badmouthing our policies. Oh and senator? Its the MULTINATIONAL FORCE! STOP LYING TO THE CAMERAS AND IMPLYING THAT WE HAVE NO OTHER COUNTRIES ASSISTING US!

Oh, and last time I looked, the military is having to do most of the diplomatic work, too, because the State department has not stepped up. Where are they? Where's all of those kind people that wanted to protect Saddam from the US? Why don't they come and help the Iraqis now?

Lets get this clear. Yet again.
THERE IS A FREAKING WAR ON!
GET WITH IT! SUPPORT THE MISSION AND THE TROOPS 100% AND WE LEAVE EARLIER!

There is no leaving without victory. We do not leave without Iraq being able to stand up for itself and not be a haven for terrorists. Leaving Iraq prior to victory is called surrender.

Carter Out Campaigning for Hamas -- Again

Could someone please take Jimmy Carter home and medicate him? How could America have EVER elected a person like this to the White House? Carter’s time in office was, of course, looonnnnnggg before I was old enough to understand politics, but just looking at the crazy things he has said over the last decade and I have to wonder just how he got into office. Here’s his latest:

Hat Tip: LGF

The United States, Israel and the European Union must end their policy of
favoring Fatah over Hamas, or they will doom the Palestinian people to deepening
conflict between the rival movements, former US President Jimmy Carter said
Tuesday.
Carter, a Nobel Peace Prize laureate who was addressing a
conference of Irish human rights officials, said the Bush administration’s
refusal to accept the 2006 election victory of Hamas was “criminal.”
Carter said Hamas, besides winning a fair and democratic mandate that should have entitled it to lead the Palestinian government, had proven itself to be far more organized in its political and military showdowns with the Fatah movement of
Palestinian Authority Chairman Mahmoud Abbas.

Favoring Fatah over Hamas? On any relevant topic, there is almost no difference between Fatah and Hamas! They are both radical terrorist killers who keep their people (what few that are not as radical as they are) oppressed and frightened. They oppress free speech and the free exercise of religion in their “countries” – such as it is.
They are both Jew-hating, Zionist conspiracy wielding, pork-petrified, woman-hating, gun toting, bomb throwing, suicide vest wearing murderers, who are so in love with death that they would murder each other out of existence without the common thread of hate for Israel. And that reaction is only to Carter’s first sentence! Jimmy Carter is so out of line, he should be a circle, and is certainly not someone to be seriously listened to on ANY subject, and certainly not foreign policy.

Charles at LGF says: “Far more organized” = much better at murder, torture, and violence. It’s just astounding that Carter would use a phrase like that to describe the nightmarish atrocities that have gone on in Gaza.”

Biden: We're Going to Shove It Down His Throat

Joe Biden must have eaten his Wheaties this moring. He's feeling so frisky that he thinks he can MAKE the President sign their surrender package. Via Drudge:

" "Blunt talk from Joe Biden, picked up by C-Span answering a man's question at Jim Clyburn's fish fry April 27 in Columbia, S.C.
Biden is asked what he'll do when Bush, as is expected, vetoes the Iraq funding bill.
First, he talks about his son, and the equipment soldiers need -- "The idea that we're not building new Humvees with the V-shaped things is just crap. Kids are dying that don't have to die."
And: "Second thing is, we're going to shove it down his throat." "

This is what happens when a liberal can't win an argument or force you to do what THEY think you should do: the purveyors of peace advocate violence.

Empy words from an empty-headed man.

Just sickening.

Anyone who cares: Biden's contact info.

Democratic Debates: Best Quote of the Night

Newsmax has some quotes from the Democratic debates last night. All the them are pretty funny (in a sad sort of way) but this one is the best to me:

MIKE GRAVEL: "We have no important enemies. What we need to do is to begin to deal with the rest of the world as equals. And we don't do that. We spend more as a nation on defense than all the rest of the world put together. Who are we afraid of?"

You can't get a bigger "pre-9/11" mindset than that.

My second favorite in Newsmax's list is this one by Chris "Democrat Klansman Robert Byrd was right on everything he said at anytime in our histroy" Dodd:

"I believe that civil unions are appropriate and proper. I don't support same-sex marriage. And the distinction there I think is one of more of what's available, what the traditions are, and the _ over the years. But, basically, that's a distinction I make. Strongly support those civil unions."

If anybody ever figures out exactly what he is saying here, let me know. This political bi-polarism at it's best.

Check out the rest of the quotes.

Overall, I wouldn't let this crew captain a rubber duck in the worlds smallest bath tub.

Don't you DARE question their patriotism!

Can't say it any better. Thinking of running for office just so I can yell at them EVERY DAY!

It Depends What the Meaning of "Support" Is
By David Limbaugh

(Some choice cuts. Go read the rest.)
Early on in the Iraq war I watched in disbelief as Democrats, one by one, then group by group, with malice aforethought, fraudulently accused President Bush of something they knew to be false.....
....they accused our commander in chief of lying us into war -- thus savaging his reputation and that of the United States before the entire world ......
...Democrats branded Bush as a unilateralist, flagrantly ignoring that he had desperately tried to bring as many nations as he could into the coalition and did succeed in convincing a significant number.
.....On into the war, Democrats couldn't bad mouth our progress often and loudly enough. For example, they proclaimed, quite gleefully, that the Iraqi people did not greet us as liberators, but occupiers.....
Though Democrats have always maintained, counter-logically, that they supported the troops even while they were busy Sheehanizing the war, they couldn't help but reveal their true colors on many occasions.....
Despite these precedent-breaking acts of disloyalty, the Democrats weren't finished outdoing themselves. Nancy Pelosi proved that when she went to Syria......Surely, we thought, the very leader of the entire House of Representatives wouldn't go that far and contradict and undermine, so overtly, the official foreign policy of the United States. We were wrong.
.....Just when we thought they couldn't stoop lower, we witnessed Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid's latest disgrace, telling the world, including our troops, that we have lost the war in Iraq.
It's hard to tell anymore whether the Democrats' deplorable actions are motivated more by their psychological predisposition against recognizing evil in the world (except among American political conservatives), or their raw quest for power. But perhaps Sen. Reid's recent statement to reporters sheds some light on the question.

"We're going to pick up Senate seats as a result of this war," said Reid. "Sen. Schumer has shown me numbers that are compelling and astounding."

Enough said.

I say it again!
REID MUST GO!

Harry Reid must go. NOW!

The excellent blog, NeverYetMelted, linked to a fine editorial by Mark Levin at National Review(mandatory reading for all conservatives) concerning the highest ranking moonbat in the Senate, Harry Reid.

An excerpt:
...Harry Reid, who by word and action is actively undermining our fighting men and women in Iraq. His legislative efforts to starve our armed forces in the middle of a war are as contemptible as anything I’ve witnessed in my 25 years in Washington. And yesterday he made a statement that was so disgraceful and brazen that it could have been uttered by Tokyo Rose during World War II or Jane Fonda during the Vietnam War. The difference, of course, is that Reid is the highest ranking Democrat in the United States Senate.

For those who are so pre-occupied with Gonzales that they may not have heard it, this is what Reid said yesterday: "I believe ... that this war is lost, and this surge is not accomplishing anything, as is shown by the extreme violence in Iraq this week."

So, Reid announces to our brave volunteers that their country is sending them to a lost war. And he announces to our enemy that victory is within their reach — just keep up the killing a little longer. During my radio show last night, I received a call from a Gold Star father. He was outraged by Reid’s comment. He has called before and has become a good friend. But I’ve never heard him as angry and frustrated as he was last night.

Rather than join the chorus demanding Gonzales's resignation, let me be the first to demand Reid's resignation.
And let's see how many pundits, conservative and otherwise, will join me.

REID MUST GO

Gathering of Eagles -- No Racial Quotas Needed

An allegation has been made (by (JTG)) that there were no “minorities” at the Gathering of Eagles. See if you can find the “minorities” in these photos:

If you look really close at the pretty young woman in black you will find out that – horror – she is NOT white, but is actually (maybe) Filipino! What’s she doing there?!

(Above:) That veteran in the US Military Vets MC jacket and the red Airborne beret look suspiciously like a ...?

(Below:) Look, two white men on a bench....

I wouldn't call the one on the right an "Oreo" if I were you.

(Below:) Two more white men enjoying the day. Look, the one on the left is wearing an evil "ChimpyBushHitler'04" hat.

Truth is, there were no Affirmative Action quotas on Gathering of Eagles. You didn't even HAVE to be a vet. You just had to be someone who cared about the United States, protecting our monuments, our troops in the field, and about completing our mission in Iraq and Afghanistan. You just had to be willing to get up early, drive the miles, and wave some flags at people who just don't get it.

Press release from Senator Feingold, Waves the white flag

SENATE MAJORITY LEADER COSPONSORS FEINGOLD BILL TO REDEPLOY TROOPS FROM IRAQ
April 2, 2007
Washington D.C. -­ U.S. Senator Russ Feingold (D-WI) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced today that they are introducing legislation that will effectively end the current military mission in Iraq and begin the redeployment of U.S. forces. The bill requires the President to begin safely redeploying U.S. troops from Iraq 120 days from enactment, as required by the emergency supplemental spending bill the Senate passed last week. The bill ends funding for the war, with three narrow exceptions, effective March 31, 2008.
“I am pleased to cosponsor Senator Feingold’s important legislation,” Reid said. “I believe it is consistent with the language included in the supplemental appropriations bill passed by a bipartisan majority of the Senate. If the President vetoes the supplemental appropriations bill and continues to resist changing course in Iraq, I will work to ensure this legislation receives a vote in the Senate in the next work period.”
“I am delighted to be working with the Majority Leader to bring our involvement in the Iraq war to an end,” Feingold said. “Congress has a responsibility to end a war that is opposed by the American people and is undermining our national security. By ending funding for the President’s failed Iraq policy, our bill requires the President to safely redeploy (surrender)our troops from Iraq.”
The language of the legislation reads:
(a) Transition of Mission - The President shall promptly transition the mission of United States forces in Iraq to the limited purposes set forth in subsection (d).
(b) Commencement of Safe, Phased Redeployment from Iraq - The President shall commence the safe, phased redeployment of United States forces from Iraq that are not essential to the purposes set forth in subsection (d). Such redeployment shall begin not later than 120 days after the date of the enactment of this Act.
(c) Prohibition on Use of Funds - No funds appropriated or otherwise made available under any provision of law may be obligated or expended to continue the deployment in Iraq of members of the United States Armed Forces after March 31, 2008.
(d) Exception for Limited Purposes - The prohibition under subsection (c) shall not apply to the obligation or expenditure of funds for the limited purposes as follows:
(1) To conduct targeted operations, limited in duration and scope, against members of al Qaeda and other international terrorist organizations.
(2) To provide security for United States infrastructure and personnel.
(3) To train and equip Iraqi security services.


There is just so much wrong with this that I don't know where to start. Well, lets start at the beginning. In a nutshell, everything hinges on "subsection (d)."

(1) targeted, limited ops vs Al Qaeda: Hhhmmm. If you are attacking A Q and others, how does one differentiate between violent domestic insurgents and AQ until after the battle? And since all of the insurgents are AQ allies, doesn't this contradict itself? And why should ops vs AQ be limited? I could go on for pages....
(2) provide security for US personnell and infrastructure: Isn't that what we do now? And if the bad guys attack but are not AQ insurgents, do we fight back?
(3) train and equip Iraqi sec forces: This contradicts (a) since this puts our forces in combat against non AQ personell. The only way to do this is to lead Iraqi troops in combat.

Senators Reid and Fiengold are idiots. I would question their patriotism but, with this, I don't have to question anything. These shortsighted, greedy, pieces of you know what are playing politics with the lives of my fellow service members just so they can make Bush look bad. Sure, the campaign has been handled badly. But they would rather surrender in the face of the enemy than support our President to win this war. This is the key campaign in the War on Terror. If they do this, no enemy will fear us; no ally will trust us.

Contact your representative now to derail this. Any Congressional member that supports this should be defeated, if not brought up for recall.

This is what the troops feel about recent vote in Congress

The excellent milblog at http://www.blackfive.net/main/2007/03/otroop_reaction.html requested that military members send in their responses to the recent surrender vote by Congress. I did, and he used it on the blog. I just wanted you to see what we really think, as opposed to what is seen in the media. Of course I know that all of our readers know better than to believe the MSM. You will probably figure out which email was mine. You will have to scroll down to find the article. Hope to see all of you in DC on the 26th.

Liberal Reasoning Captured on Video!

Ever wonder what a liberal looks like as they read the newspaper?

Ever want to see how liberals arrive at some of the wacky conclusions they espouse?

Ever wonder, “What in the world was going thought their minds?

Have you ever wanted to see visually how BDS (Bush Derangement Syndrome) reacts with the brain?

I can help you. Go to this link on YouTube and watch how the liberal mind on politics works. I couldn’t stop laughing!!! This is so funny it HAD to be a Karl Rove plant!

Of course, being the person that I am, you KNOW I had to send a response to this. My response should be finished processing by tomorrow and posted as a response. I will give you a link when they post it.

….Just TOOO CRAAZY!!!

Flip Clinton

You know, if you look at the background just right.....

I don't know if it's expressing what she thinks of the Ameircan people, or is she acknowledging what I think of her.

Heck, why don't we just make this, this weeks "You Be the Editor" photo. Caption away!

Sunday Funnies: algore

h/t: found at Psycmeisters, trail ended at Wide Awakes