News and Commentary on Politics, Media and Culture

After seeing the insanity unfold before his eyes, a visiting law professor felt compelled to say this:

“I am really astonished at the mood in this room,” commented one witness, George Mason University School of Law professor Jeremy Rabkin.

“The tone of these deliberations is slightly demented,” Rabkin said. “You should all remind yourselves that the rest of the country is not necessarily in this same bubble in which people think it is reasonable to describe the president as if he were Caligula.”

Where was he?  A netroots (or do I mean nutroots?) convention?  A Truthers’ gathering?  A San Francisco party?  A Berkeley tree sit-in?

Nope.  None of the above.

Our professor was sitting at House Judiciary Committee hearing, listening to Democratic Congresspeople and their friends vent their spleen at President Bush.  It wasn’t an impeachment — the Dems aren’t that stupid — but it was almost worse, because it had the trappings of a kangaroo court with the President being tried in absentia:

Leading the way was Rep. Dennis Kucinich, D-Ohio, the former Democratic presidential candidate who has brought repeated impeachment resolutions on the House floor against Bush and Vice President Cheney.

Kucinich got a rock star welcome of whistles, hoots and clapping as he walked into the hearing room, holding hands with his wife, from hundreds of anti-war, anti-Bush people crammed into the room and lining the hallways outside. T-shirts reading “Arrest Bush” and “Veterans for Impeachment” illustrated the sentiments of many.

“The decision before us is whether to demand accountability for one of the gravest injustices imaginable,” Kucinich testified, avoiding use of the “I” word.

[snip]

“To the regret of many, this is not an impeachment hearing,” said committee chairman John Conyers, D-Mich., pointing out the less incendiary title of the event, “executive power and its constitutional limitations.”

Still, Conyers, a vocal opponent of Bush, noted that his panel had pursued many issues that Kucinich and others regard as impeachable offenses: manipulating intelligence about Iraq; misusing authority with regard to torture, detention and rendition; politicizing the Justice Department and retaliating against critics, as in the outing of former CIA agent Valerie Plame.

[snip]

“The rules of the House prevent me or any witness from utilizing familiar terms,” Kucinich said. “But we can put two and two together in our minds.”

Former Los Angeles County Prosecutor Vincent Bugliosi, known for his prosecution of Charles Manson in 1970, acknowledged that “I am forbidden from accusing him of a crime, or even any dishonorable conduct” under House rules. But he could still encourage people to read his book, “The Prosecution of George W. Bush for Murder.”

Rep. Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., was less circumspect in asserting that Bush was “the worst president that our nation has ever suffered.”

Rep. Maurice Hinchey, D-N.Y., concluded that “this is the most impeachable administration in the history of America because of the way that it has clearly violated the law.”

Unsurprisingly, the only sane words in this gravitas-free mad house from actual elected figures came from a Republican:

“It seems that we are hosting an anger management class,” said Rep. Lamar Smith of Texas, the committee’s senior Republican. “This hearing will not cause us to impeach the president; it will only serve to impeach Congress’s credibility.”

[Discuss This Topic with Bookworm]

No Comments »

I have been obsessing lately on the over-regulation of my life. All of my friends have been made aware, in animated language, that I’m fed up with the control the powers that be exert over me. I’m tired of paying too many taxes for stupid things. I’m tired of electronic tickets given in the blink of a camera lens, gas prices higher than anywhere else in the country due to Illinois taxes, thwarted elections due to the long tradition of Cook County “appointments”, and the overwhelming feeling that I am never alone…Big Brother is always watching.

But now, they want into my house. Literally. The federal government (AKA the twits in Congress) Are voting on a bill called Education Begins at Home which will have Uncle Sam waltzing into my living room to evaluate my parenting. All of this is “voluntary”, of course, but it has severely frightening potential to become sinister in the extreme. They want to evaluate everyone’s children for all sorts of medical, social, mental red flags and “help” you work it out. They also want to “help” you discipline your child better.

Let me give you a perfectly reasonable scenario that could occur when one of these sensibly shoed “social workers” comes into your home.

“Johnny appears to be very hyper Mrs. Smith, it’s definitely ADD. Here is a prescription for some terrific depressants that will chill him out. I also notice he hasn’t had the chicken pox shot or the MMR vaccine. I have them here. Let’s take care of that right now. ”

“Uh…thanks for coming, but I think I’ll pass.”

“Mrs. Smith, I don’t think you understand. This is what he needs and you must give it to him or we will rescue him from your negligence.”

“Please leave. ”

“And Johnny also mentioned that he gets spankings sometimes. Mrs. Smith, the government doesn’t recognize corporal punishment as a valid parenting method. We request you stop that immediately and simply listen to Johnny’s feelings about his behavior.”

3 months later, you’re in court hearing a judge order your son to be forcibly medicated and you get sentenced to regular visits from a social worker to be sure there are no more spankings. The even more terrorizing scenario is having your children taken from you and put into the foster system.

This is not liberty! We have all declared that we hold these truths to be self-evident. All men are created equal and endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights and among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. (And if you don’t agree with this declaration, you don’t belong here. There are plenty of places that would suit you well, like Cuba, North Korea, Iran…)

The arguments about drugs for ADD versus nutritional overhaul and natural remedy and the pro-vaccine and the anti-vaccine, and spanking or timeouts, are VAST. Which is what makes them valid and valuable topics that need to be debated over and over until we have answers. Or at least until you, the individual can make an informed, free decision on what is best for you and your child. I’m not here to tell anyone what to do. I have no desire to run your life, but I do have a very passionate desire to run my own.

I’m writing my reps to tell them to vote down this bill. The further away from your life the government is, the happier you will be. Care to join me in telling them?

CLICK HERE TO WRITE TO CONGRESS

Here’s my letter to Bobby Rush…fat lot of good it will do here in the People’s Republic of Cook County, IL. I hate my reps.

Dear Mr. Rush,

I am writing you to encourage you to vote against the Education Starts at Home bill that is coming to the floor soon. This bill is more government intrusion on my rights as a parent. I do not want the government evaluating my child. I do not trust any government with the well-being of my child. I believe I have the right to Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness which is self-evident in the state of being human. That no government has the right to impose upon those rights. This bill is an imposition on my liberty. My liberty to be a parent to my child. My child has parents who love her more than any institution in the world and we will act in her best interest. We do not need help from the state to determine if our child is well, happy, healthy or sane. All we need from the federal govt, is to ensure our lives by keeping our national defense tight and our borders sealed, to ensure our liberty by protecting the Constitution, and to allow us to pursue our happiness by staying out of the way! We’ll take care of the rest of our lives!
Thank you for doing your duty by upholding our great Constitution and listening to the will of the people.

[Discuss this topic with the Little Fox...]

No Comments »

I wrote yesterday and the conservative part of the Internet was abuzz with the story that Barack Obama had pulled out of a visit with wounded troops in Germany. My original piece discussed an issue with the DOD indicating that Obama could only go there in the capacity of a Senator and that campaign personnel could not accompany him. The DOD is saying that it only reminded the Senator of the law against campaigning on military installations and as part of that he could only bring Congressional staffers. He had to leave campaign staff and the media behind (the military would provide photographers). The DOD states that it left the decision as to whether to show or not up to Obama. We know what decision he made. The article indicates the DOD did not even make a judgment as to whether he was visiting or campaigning. It just reminded him of the rules.

“Sen. Obama is welcome to visit Landstuhl or any military hospital in his official capacity as a United States senator,” Morrell said in a brief interview. “But there is a DoD policy which governs campaigning and electioneering at military facilities that would have to be respected if he were to visit. That distinction was relayed and made clear to campaign, and they made a decision on their own based on that guidance.” Politico

But wait, there’s more. After the backlash of criticism for dissing the troops the Obama campaign has stated that they were told by the DOD not to show up. The campaign’s take on the situation is completely different than the one the DOD described. I am sure the DOD account is the accurate one. The DOD does not tell members of Congress that they cannot visit. They will tell them the guidelines, in this case the law, but they will not deny a member of Congress access to a DOD facility.

It would appear as if Obama wanted to visit the hospitals under the guise of being a visiting Senator but that he had plans to use the visit for the campaign. This would explain why he did not just leave his campaign staff and the MSM behind and make the trip. He wanted the MSM there to record his every move so that the film could later be used as a campaign ad to show how in touch with the troops he really is. When his bluff was called with the pesky rules, he decided not to go. Remember, Obama said in his speech that he was not there as a candidate for the presidency and then promptly sent an email about the speech asking for donations. He was there to campaign despite what he says (some of that speech will be used in campaign ads).

The decision not to go was entirely Obama’s. He had the opportunity to meet with wounded warriors and chose not to because he could not make it a campaign visit.

The campaign’s attempt to shift the blame for this to the DOD is cowardly and irresponsible. It is a sign or poor leadership to abandon subordinates when the going gets tough or things do not go your way. Obama abandoned them on the battlefield a log time ago and now he has abandoned them during their recuperation from terrible injuries. This guy is not fit to be the leader of these fine men and women. Obama does not have the ability to take responsibility for his actions. It always has to be someone else’s fault.

That is not the DOD he knew…

[Discuss This Topic with Big Dog]

No Comments »

If the mainstream media isn’t yet embarrassed by their over the top coverage of a junior Senator from Illinois with nary an accomplishment minus their personal obsession over his skin color then they should be. Many in the American public and even some media people themselves are starting to mock the MSM contingent that is hanging onto every move the anointed one makes like love starved groupies at a Beatles concert.

A perfect example is the image here from Der Spiegel. It is an obvious photoshopped attempt to make Barack Obama seem larger than life. They have made a mockery of themselves and their profession. As cheerleaders for Barack Obama the MSM has reduced themselves to becoming a running joke. Unprofessional, biased and simply over the top like they have some lovesick teenage crush.

The latest print caricature of the MSM groupies covering the Obama Mystery Tour comes from across the pond in a Times online article written by Gerard Baker.

Here’s a taste from the middle of Baker’s “He ventured forth to bring light to the world” article that includes the apt byline, The anointed one’s pilgrimage to the Holy Land is a miracle in action - and a blessing to all his faithful followers

In the great Battles of Caucus and Primary he smote the conniving Hillary, wife of the deposed King Bill the Priapic and their barbarian hordes of Working Class Whites.

And so it was, in the fullness of time, before the harvest month of the appointed year, the Child ventured forth - for the first time - to bring the light unto all the world.

He travelled fleet of foot and light of camel, with a small retinue that consisted only of his loyal disciples from the tribe of the Media. He ventured first to the land of the Hindu Kush, where the Taleban had harboured the viper of al-Qaeda in their bosom, raining terror on all the world.

And the Child spake and the tribes of Nato immediately loosed the Caveats that had previously bound them. And in the great battle that ensued the forces of the light were triumphant. For as long as the Child stood with his arms raised aloft, the enemy suffered great blows and the threat of terror was no more.

From there he went forth to Mesopotamia where he was received by the great ruler al-Maliki, and al-Maliki spake unto him and blessed his Sixteen Month Troop Withdrawal Plan even as the imperial warrior Petraeus tried to destroy it.

And lo, in Mesopotamia, a miracle occurred. Even though the Great Surge of Armour that the evil Bush had ordered had been a terrible mistake, a waste of vital military resources and doomed to end in disaster, the Child’s very presence suddenly brought forth a great victory for the forces of the light.

And the Persians, who saw all this and were greatly fearful, longed to speak with the Child and saw that the Child was the bringer of peace. At the mention of his name they quickly laid aside their intrigues and beat their uranium swords into civil nuclear energy ploughshares.

From there the Child went up to the city of Jerusalem, and entered through the gate seated on an ass. The crowds of network anchors who had followed him from afar cheered “Hosanna” and waved great palm fronds and strewed them at his feet.

In Jerusalem and in surrounding Palestine, the Child spake to the Hebrews and the Arabs, as the Scripture had foretold. And in an instant, the lion lay down with the lamb, and the Israelites and Ishmaelites ended their long enmity and lived for ever after in peace.

As word spread throughout the land about the Child’s wondrous works, peoples from all over flocked to hear him; Hittites and Abbasids; Obamacons and McCainiacs; Cameroonians and Blairites.

And they told of strange and wondrous things that greeted the news of the Child’s journey. Around the world, global temperatures began to decline, and the ocean levels fell and the great warming was over.

No shit. But there’s more, much more. It is a fun read.

Of course the humorless left will see this as another unfair attack on Mr. 143. I wouldn’t be surprised to see the New Yorker launch another satirical cover, this time of Obama spreading the Red Sea with rod in hand; all the while explaining how the cover is a tongue in cheek satirical look at the unfair attacks the anointed one is suffering at the hands of us crotchety old media watchers.

Such a cover would require another response by the MSM’s Obama protectorate that has a habit of over reacting even when they are responding to their own that dared make fun at Barack Obama’s expense. I can imagine something similar to the latest Vanity Fair cartoon or the one that appeared in the Seattle Post Intelligencer. This time they could depict John McCain in another typical leftist stereotype, perhaps as an over the hill Vietnam Veteran killing babies with his cane.

Thus is the state of the silly looking media and their laughable coverage of Barack Obama, healer, uniter and man who judges no one, not terrorist neighbor, racist preacher or pro-Palestinian adviser that meets secretly with Hamas.

The truth hurts and Baker is inflicting some much deserved pain on the shameless campaign ad the mainstream media is producing gratis for Barack Obama.

No Comments »

Barack Obama, faker, spoke in Germany today and tried to ride the coat tails of a truly great man by lifting themes from President Ronald Reagan’s famous wall speech at the Brandenburg Gate in West Germany.

In fact Barack Obama was so blatant in his attempts to appear Reaganesque that he attempted to deliver his speech at the same site. Thankfully German politicians turned up the heat and the request was turned down.

“Obama didn’t do anything for German unification,” Mr Huber said.

“That’s not a criticism, but as a result there is no reason to grant him such a privilege,” he told the Welt am Sonntag newspaper.

Der Spiegel is covering every aspect of Barack Obama’s movements. Here’s a glimpse of what Obama is saying while on this latest stop of the Barack Obama fantasy tour.

++ Obama Calls on Europeans and Americans to Fight Terror Together ++

7:38 p.m.: “True partnership and true progress requires constant work and sustained sacrifice. Requires allies who will learn from each other, listen to each other and most of all trust each other.” Obama says: “America has no better partner than Europe.” He called on Europeans and Americans to work together “to defeat terror and dry up the well of extremism that supports it.”

++’We Cannot Afford to be Divided’ ++

7:33 p.m.: Obama says “We cannot afford to be divided. On both sides of the Atlantic we have drifted apart and forgotten our shared destiny.” Obama calls on people to “tear down new walls” between races, countries and religions.

What an embarrassment. Is this change or just another in a long line of unoriginal themes lifted from great leaders of the past?

As for the sacrifice line and the obvious swipe against America and the Bush administration what can I say. This is Barack Obama’s world view; one that is shared by the American left. When Democrats, and especially one of their most liberal Senators say “allies who will learn from each other, listen to each other and most of all trust each other” they are specifically taking America to task for its success and her people’s reluctance to accept socialist ideology as the new world religion. Forget American innovation, forget any past or present help America is providing our European allies, forget American charity that the left measures as a portion of the GDP rather than the overwhelming amount that is donated in whole numbers. Forget all of that.

We should apologize for being American, apologize for SUV’s, apologize for abu ghraib and apologize for anything we are guilty of doing according to the American left. Most especially we should apologize for the war in Iraq, forget that Democrats voted for such change before George Bush took office, forget that the murderous dictator Saddam Hussein was actively paying terrorist families rewards for blowing themselves up in Israel and actively training future terrorists that have aims on the United States, forget the failed diplomacy and anythign else the American left can blame on America. Just be shameful.

Not to be undone Barack Obama even evoked the great Bob the Builder “yes we can speech” that is given to Thomas the Train and friends every morning on your local cable station.

++ Obama Speaks of Berlin’s Cold War History ++

7:26 p.m.: Obama says: “This city knows the dream of freedom.” He says: “People of the world look at Berlin.”

++ Obama Arrives at Victory Column ++

7:21 p.m.: Obama takes to the podium to cheers of “Yes, we can.”

Unfortunately nothing could stop Barack Obama from unfolding the second half of the plan and uttering a completely ridiculous speech that was so obviously lifted from the themes put forth by Reagan and Kennedy that Obama should be mocked for his efforts.

Here’s the real deal:

No Comments »

You will soon have no rights over your own children: The government will be sending in specialists to evaluate your children medically, emotionally, physically, … for 5 medical conditions. “The federal definition of developmental screening for special education also includes what they call socioemotional screening, which is mental health screening,” Dr. Effrem said. “Mental health screening is very subjective no matter what age you do it. Obviously it is incredibly subjective when we are talking about very young children.” (WND)

Next this they will want to TAKE the babies and raise them in a government run commune somewhere.

Big Brother to teach you how to be parent

Proposals would give Washington unprecedented control over children

The U.S. House of Representatives is scheduled to debate two bills that could give the federal government unprecedented control over the way parents raise their children – even providing funds for state workers to come into homes and screen babies for emotional and developmental problems.

The Pre-K Act (HR 3289) and the Education Begins at Home Act (HR 2343) are two bills geared toward military and families who fall below state poverty lines. The measures are said to be a way to prevent child abuse, close the achievement gap in education between poor and minority infants versus middle-class children and evaluate babies younger than 5 for medical conditions.

‘Education Begins at Home Act’ – HR 2343

HR 2343 is sponsored by Rep. Danny Davis, D-Ill., and cosponsored by 55 Democrats and 11 Republicans. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that implementing the Education Begins at Home Act would cost taxpayers $190 million for state home visiting, plus “such sums as may be necessary” for in-hospital parent education. (WND)

[Discuss This Topic with Debbie Hamilton]

No Comments »

Taxes Fine for You Lowly Peasants, Democrats Avoid Tax Pain At The Pump, Dem Mayor Lies About Republicans

Earlier this year John McCain called for a gas tax holiday during the Summer in order to ease the burden of the cost of gasoline. Hillary Clinton agreed with the idea but Barack Obama and many other Democrats did not like it and decided it was not a good idea. It was a particularly sore item with regard to union workers in the construction industry who reminded Democrats that a cut in the tax would reduce the money available to work on road projects leading to many unemployed construction workers just prior to the election. This prompted the idea that they needed to raise the gasoline tax 10 cents.

Democrats oppose a tax holiday because it will decrease revenue and it will not bring much relief to people who are buying gas. For what it is worth, I don’t like the idea of the holiday because I think they should abolish the gas tax completely. That is the real source of gouging. It seems that Democrats don’t like the idea of people not paying taxes on their gasoline unless those people are working for the Democrats in order to organize the convention.

It is reported today that the city of Denver has been allowing the people working for the DNC in Denver to fuel the vehicles they are using at the city’s pumps thus avoiding state and federal taxes. This has been going on for four months with the full consent of the Mayor but the Attorney General of Colorado says it looks like an illegal practice. Ya think?

The Mayor, John Hickenlooper, has stated the practice would change but that it should be OK because Republicans are getting the same deal in Minneapolis. Those from the RNC who were contacted about this stated they were buying gas on the market and were therefore paying the appropriate taxes. No such deal is in order for them.

Isn’t it amazing that Democrats always love to raise taxes and they love to tell us how we need to pay our fair share but when push comes to shove they avoid paying taxes every chance they get?

Do as I say and not as I do is the mantra of the left.

[Discuss This Topic with Big Dog]

No Comments »

No Outrage As The Elderly Are Treated as Second Class Citizens By The Mainstream Media

Hot on the heels of a Seattle Post-Intelligencer response to the New Yorker cartoon depicting John McCain using an ageist stereotype is Vanity Fair. Like the Seattle P-I cartoon the Vanity Fair version features John McCain in typical liberal mockery of the elderly by depicting him in a walker alongside his pill popping wife. (Full size image here.)

The difference between the Vanity Fair and Seattle P-I depictions of John and Cindy McCain and that of the New Yorker featuring the media’s preferred family is that neither of the former cartoon depictions are satirical. They may claim to be but I doubt it as they weren’t conjured up in response to some unfair liberal misrepresentation of the McCains. Instead they were created to even the playing field for over sensitive liberals that were up in arms over the New Yorker cover.

As for the Vanity Fair readers we can glean what we must about their character by reading the typical comments that accompany the Vanity Fair article.

• Wonderful piece of art, nails the NY cover perfectly, but isn’t McKrusty’s big bump on the wrong side of his face?
• McCain looks just like himself.
• Unfortunately, you didn’t take it far enough. As someone else points out the satire here is not far from the actual (Cindy had a drug problem & John is old). Now if you had portrayed them a jack-booted Nazis perhaps you could have approached the offensiveness of the New Yorker.

These people never cease to live down to their standards.

Given all the mainstream media outrage over the New Yorker cover wouldn’t anyone think that there would be similar outrages over the repetitive attacks against John McCain using the stereotypical ageist depictions that have become commonplace for the left? AARP? Anyone?

Nope, the AARP is too busy feeding into liberal narratives about John McCain’s lack of internet usage and the mainstream media apparently could care less, choosing instead to reserve their outrage in defense of Barack Obama.

No Comments »

It’s no longer a phrase heard much anymore, but the Progressives used to title themselves “the reality based community.” They understood the real world, unlike the cruel, self-centered, self-serving conservatives surrounding them. Of course, that being the case, Obama must be the reality based candidate. However, Cheat-Seeking Missiles, riffing off a Washington Post editorial, points out that, when it comes to Middle Eastern policy, Obama is anything but grounded in reality:

The editorial winds up for several paragraphs before delivering this closer:

Yet Mr. Obama’s account of his strategic vision remains eccentric. He insists that Afghanistan is “the central front” for the United States, along with the border areas of Pakistan. But there are no known al-Qaeda bases in Afghanistan, and any additional U.S. forces sent there would not be able to operate in the Pakistani territories where Osama bin Laden is headquartered. While the United States has an interest in preventing the resurgence of the Afghan Taliban, the country’s strategic importance pales beside that of Iraq, which lies at the geopolitical center of the Middle East and contains some of the world’s largest oil reserves. If Mr. Obama’s antiwar stance has blinded him to those realities, that could prove far more debilitating to him as president than any particular timetable.

Other than choosing the word “eccentric” when so many other words would have worked better (thick-headed, flabbergasting, laughable, cro-zo), that pretty much nails it. You have in Obama a candidate who is clueless regarding the threats we face and the best means to face them, who wants so much to not be Bush that he refuses to acknowledge reality.

I for one would rather have a president who makes the mistake of calling out a fool all by himself instead of assigning the task to a surrogate, than one who tramples over Pakistan - a nuclear-armed nation that’s just barely holding of an Islamist uprising - to hunt for Osama bin Laden, who has done nothing more threatening than issuing tapes lately.

You can read the rest of Laer’s post here.

[Discuss This Topic with Bookworm]

No Comments »

In an amusing article that compiles examples of American and European media hysteria about Obama’s world tour (think Madonna and the Beatles, only bigger), Denis Boyles makes an interesting point about the European fixation with an Obama (read:  black) Presidency:

Anyway, the gist: Europeans really really want Obama to be the next U.S. president, just as they wanted John Kerry to be the current president. The Daily Telegraph’s poll last May showing Europe’s overwhelming preference for Obama — findings repeated today by Gallup — are everywhere in the coverage of Tour Obama 2008. Seven of every ten Italians, two-thirds of all French and Germans, and half of Britons sober enough to be able to respond to a poll question would vote for Obama to be president of the U.S.A. if they could.

However, if you asked the French, the Germans, the British and the Italians if they’d vote for a black candidate to govern their own countries, the results would be different, even if the candidate were the black JFK du jour. Those million Germans in Berlin will all be long gone before a man or woman of African descent becomes chancellor, prime minister or president of any European country. The French had a hard enough time voting for a chap of Hungarian descent; the odds of them voting for a “rat” — as they quaintly call their North African immigrants — are impossibly long.

[Discuss This Topic with Bookworm]

No Comments »