CNN's Latest Putz: Jane Velez Mitchell And Her "War On Women" Issue

You know, I've never been one to advocate any form of violence against women. Period. I find it appalling. It's pathetic. And I personally think those posing to be men, who exert force against women should receive the same treatment they inflicted on women, as part of their own punishment. But I will say this. This new Femi-Nazi that CNN gave airtime to, in place of Glenn Beck, needs to go. Jane Valez Mitchell truly does have ISSUES, but it appears to only be mental issues she needs to cope with. And I seriously doubt anything less than some overt act of violence will do the trick at putting her head on straight. Yes, it's sad to think of it that way. But the incompetent fervor that Mitchell injects into her hour long rant-o-vision broadcasts, is nothing less than an embarrassment to all journalists. She either needs to get her a$$ squared away, or be shipped out. Perhaps she can go back to covering local news somewhere, like in the Himalayas. It would be nice if the change could be brought upon without something horrible happening. But the odds are against it, especially when dealing with the liberal mentality she exudes.

Take for instance, her latest femi-rage she's been on. The "War Against Women." As she describes it so un-eloquently, all men are scum. All men are monsters of one form or another. And they are all out to do harm, specifically to women. This is wroooong, in just so many ways I shan't bother to even list them. One particular item she's been stuck on in this particular realm, is the case of missing New York girl, Laura Garza. Garza went missing a couple weeks ago, and the prime suspect is a complete loser, Level-1 sex offender, Michael Mele. If you get a chance to see a pic of Garza, she is a pretty cute girl. I'm sorry to hear she's still missing. I'm sure she was a real sweetheart, and I actually mean that. But most likely, she is dead. I hope not, but it's probably true. Mitchell ranted and raved about how despicable this guy Mele was, and has had plenty of guests on to echo her sentiments. But yet, right before going off about this missing girl Garza, she was all up in arms about how we need MORE gun control! More gun control. We've got to disarm the populace, (namely men) because guns and men automatically equal violence against women.

Sigh....

Does anyone else here see a problem?

Let's review, Jane, before you manage to somehow, make yourself look worse than you already do. You sit there, spewing your standardized, teleprompted liberal mantra about more gun control, which we all know doesn't work for crap. And then you jump into the fire, head first, about a New York City woman going missing, most likely by this Mele guy. Hellllooooooooo Jane! New York City just happens to have the same BullS#!t no gun, Washington D.C. style restrictions. Now, had Garza possibly had the appropriate tool for the situation, also known as a GUN, would Garza still be missing? Possibly, but not as likely. And don't even try to feed the world that crap about 'the gun would just get used against her, and she'd end up dead.' Hey you bleeding heart idiot! She's ALREADY freaking missing! If Garza would have had immediate access to a firearm, she would have had at least a 50-50 chance of fighting back, possibly emptying a magazine into the tard that sent her missing (likely Mele), or going missing anyways. Give her a fighting chance you femi-stooge! Odds are, Garza would not be missing right now, and there most likely wouldn't be a trial required for this sex-prior loser Mele, as he would probably be dead.

Well, look at that will you. The girl comes out safe (possibly) in the end, and the bad guy is dead. And even better, the state doesn't have to dig deeper into the taxpayers pocket to pay for his decades long storage and upkeep. Just a hole in the ground.

In retrospect, get Mitchell off the air CNN, before she manages to say something even more inane than she has spouted thus far. YOUR reputation is depending on it.

David Spade Donates $100K To Phoenix PD For AR-15's

Here's one of those slightly off track articles I occasionally do. But this was just amazing! Amazingly amazing! Amazingly amazingly amazing! Life truly does exist amongst Hollywood personages. I never would have guessed it. But I now have a new found respect for one of those personages in Hollywood. And that is for the star of "Just Shoot Me," actor David Spade. Just for what Mr. Spade has done, I think I'll go out and buy a couple DVDs of his work. Perhaps a season of Just Shoot Me, or the movie Bench Warmers. Anything really. If an actor can bring himself to make a donation of this magnitude, and for such a cause, they deserve my admiration.

But, back to the story. Actor David Spade, originally a Scottsdale Saguaro High School graduate, as well as graduated from Arizona State University, donated $100K to the Phoenix Police Department to help pay for new Bushmaster AR-15 rifles. Spade said he was motivated to do so, after having seen a TV news report about Phoenix officers having to buy their own rifles. Spades publicist had given a statement from Spade saying, "These guys need to be able to do their jobs and I am just happy I could help."

And help it will. In light of the city's ongoing budget problems, the $100K gift could mean as many as 300 officers could soon be trained and equipped with Bushmaster AR-15's within the next six months. The $100K could purchase upwards of 50 Rifles and the training needed to operate them. Whilst SWAT/ERT Officers are normally the ones trained to use assault weapons, it's the Patrol Officer that bears the initial encounters. Does the North Hollywood engagement ring any bells?

Also, something I did not know until today about actor Spade, was that this was NOT his first donation in regards to the Phoenix Police Department. As found on the Arizona Republic site, "Spade also donated $25,000 last year after the line of duty death of Phoenix Officer Nick Erfle, an incident where tactical officers used an AR-15 to fatally shoot at the man suspected in his slaying, who was holding a hostage at gunpoint." Police Chief Jack Harris had said, "I'm thankful someone like David Spade would remember his hometown and help increase the safety of officers on the street."

So, I guess Holly"weird" is not a total loss after all.

My thanks to you Mr. Spade. I like to hope that your actions will be contagious, and catch on like an epidemic amongst the rest of the actors/actresses around you.

Don't You Dare Help Me Or I Will Sue!

You have got to be kidding me. Where else but the smiling, sunny, warm and welcoming state of California, could something so incredibly stupid as this occur. Come to think of it, it really doesn't surprise me any more when I read about stuff like this. Especially here in California. You can bet, if something stupid is under way, it's got to be happening in California. The term of endearment description, of California being the 'Land of Fruits and Nuts' rings true on a daily basis it would appear.

We seem to have an over abundance of the mentally criminal out here on the West coast, as felony-stupidity is running rampant as of late.

But here's the deal on our latest blast of numptiness. In California, a good Samaritan can now be SUED, for rendering any assistance other than strictly medical aid. Case in point; a woman was aiding a coworker out of a wrecked vehicle after a Halloween party traffic accident. The supposed 'rag-doll' like removal of the accident victim is being blamed for the damage to the victims spine, now rendering her a paraplegic. Not that it wasn't completely possible that this injury had already been received from the car wreck itself. None the less, the 'rescuer' in this case, can be sued according to the California Supreme Court.

I'll give ya a couple blasts from the LATimes article on this: The California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that a young woman who pulled a co-worker from a crashed vehicle isn't immune from civil liability because the care she rendered wasn't medical.

The divided high court appeared to signal that rescue efforts are the responsibility of trained professionals. It was also thought to be the first ruling by the court that someone who intervened in an accident in good faith could be sued.

At least a few of the judges had some sense about them; But in a sharp dissent, three of the seven justices said that by making a distinction between medical care and emergency response, the court was placing "an arbitrary and unreasonable limitation" on protections for those trying to help. The three dissenting justices argued, however, that the aim of the legislation was clearly "to encourage persons not to pass by those in need of emergency help, but to show compassion and render the necessary aid."

And of course, we have the standardized lawyer/professor input here; Both opinions have merit, "but I think the majority has better arguments," said Michael Shapiro, professor of constitutional and bioethics law at USC. Shapiro said the majority was correct in interpreting that the Legislature meant to shield doctors and other healthcare professionals from being sued for injuries they cause despite acting with "reasonable care," as the law requires. Noting that he would be reluctant himself to step in to aid a crash victim with potential spinal injuries, Shapiro said the court's message was that emergency care "should be left to medical professionals."

I'd like to know where people like this live, so I can sit on their street corner, watch them get into a car wreck while texting away, so I can walk over to them and say, "I'd love to help you get out of the car before it explodes but, well, no, I really don't want to help," and just walk away and let them die. Cruel? Perhaps. But how much more vile was it for them to make this decision in the first place?

I foresee a lot of people being left for dead on the side of the road now.

Egyptian College Student Gets 15 Years For YouTube Video

It really takes a special kind of stupid, to do something like what this guy did. I mean, not your average, ordinary, run of the mill quality of stupid. This kinda stupid needs outside assistance to attain this level of mental shortsightedness. Most likely, it was influence from when he was in college. Lotsa Lib's there. Which explains why many that enter colleges/universities smart, come out dumber than when they went in. (For examples: see Berkeley, Columbia or our recent elections.) So I suppose it would kind of account for at least some of the stupid factor he was suffering from in this incident.

But holy geez! Was this guy ever stupid!

Important tip: If you want to aid your little jihadi buddies by teaching them how to make a bomb detonator out of a cheapo Wal-Mart remote control toy, DON'T put it on YouTube you freaking idiot! Have you not seen the numerous little wanna-be gangsta hoodlums being arrested because they flaunted their AK's and other weapons in YouTube vids? And you went forward with posting a bomb making video on YouTube anyways?

Like I said, a special kind of stupid.

This numpty deserved to be jailed for the 15 years he got. And I mean it from the bottom of my compassionate heart. Not so much for the safety of those around him, but for his own good. When a person is this mentally deficient, as to make a bomb constructing video, and actually post it for the world to see, they need more than just 'counseling.' They need drool bibs and a plastic helmet with an I.D. tag on it, like;

"My Name Jihadi-boy. If I lost, pleez call #1-800-ImA-Tard."

Eh, perhaps not, as that would be a slight to those who are actually mentally challenged. And they don't deserve to be slighted.

And I haven't even gone into the issue of his doing this intentionally to "teach 'martyrdoms' and 'suiciders' how to save themselves so they can continue to fight invaders, including U.S. soldiers. "Instead of the brethren going to, to carry out martyrdom operations, no, may God bless him, he can use the explosion tools from a distance and preserve his life ... for the real battles," he says, according to a translation in the plea agreement."

Well, enjoy your jail time a$$wipe. I hope they get some of your 'finer prison moments' you'll be having on video. So we can see that on YouTube...

Want To Know WHY Bankruptcy Is Better Than A Bailout?

"Okay, so why is the avenue of bankruptcy better for the auto industry, rather than a bailout? Enlighten me oh Hoopy one. Yes, bless me with the knowledge that only you seem to have." For those that haven't figured it out, that was written from the perspective of just one of the many lib-tards I must deal with on a daily basis. And it would appear our own President has been affected by this disease, commonly referred to as Liberalism.

But, as requested, here it is. The primary reason why the auto industry needs to go bankrupt, rather than get a taxpayer funded handout, as provided by GetLiberty.org.

This is 22 pounds of pure, unadulterated and documented stupidity. Also known as Ford’s 2,215 page 2007 master contract with the UAW. GM and Chrysler's contracts fair little better.

Think I'm kidding you? Okay, than how about you go look them up YOURSELF. Yeah, I have the links right here "bail-out'ers," thanks to J. Justin Wilson of LaborPains.org.

Ford’s 2007 Contract:

Volume 1: Agreements

Volume 2: Retirement Plan and Insurance Program

Volume 3: Supplemental Unemployment Benefit Agreement and Plan, Profit Sharing Agreement and Plan (ha!), Tax-Efficient Savings Agreement and Plan, and UAW-Ford Legal Services Plan

Volume 4: Letters of Understanding

Volume 5: Skilled Trades Book

"Well, that's just Ford. GM and Chrysler aren't that bad," so says the libby's. Interesting you should bring that up. If Ford's is this bad, then WHY is Ford fairing better than Chrysler and GM with their 'not that bad' contracts? Just to quell those reason for a bail-out delusions your having, here's their contracts too;

GM’s 2003 and 2007 contracts:

GM’s 2003 contract (71 megs)

Changes to GM’s 2007 contract (HT: Factory Rats; full contract not available) They won't even allow their new contracts out.

Chrysler’s 2003 and 2007 contracts:

Chrysler’s 2003 contract (21 megs)

Changes to Chrysler’s 2007 contract (HT: Factory Rats; full contract not available) Ditto here. I'm willing to bet, that given another round of 'negotiations,' Ford's would be unavailable as well.

'nuff said? I think so. No, no, please. No need to start bowing and praising. Just doing what comes naturally here.

More Cultural Jihad Crap: Georgia Judge Jails Muslim Woman Over Hijab

And of course, the judicial system, after exercising the appropriate response to the problem, backpedals all over itself once Holyland Foundation Co-Conspirator, CAIR (Council on American-Islamic Relations) got it's beyond tainted fingers in the legal party-dip. This kinda stuff happens all the time, and of course, never makes it to the media elites broadcasts. Heavens no! Wouldn't want to upset those poor, persecuted, muslims now, would we?

Take for example, the state of Alabama having to scrap it's requirements for Drivers Licences. All because some muslim woman didn't want to remove her hajib. And of course, guess who was at the forefront of this 'supposed' civil rights tragedy? You guessed it... CAIR.

Tolerance and Diversity. The two biggest scams in the history of mankind. Well, right behind Socialism and Global Whining. The standard mantra of those 'professing' equality in situations such as this; "If you don't totally agree with what we're doing to your country, then you are a bigot, a hater," etc, etc, etc." I've got a much better, and in this case, much more appropriate word for this kind of subservience.

Dhimmitude.

It's not really a humanistic way to live. I guess it could probably be better described as about the least civil lifestyle a person could try to survive under. If you manage to survive the original onslaught at all.

And yet, this is exactly what we are being pushed into. Just as Douglasville, Georgia has discovered. ATLANTA – A judge ordered the arrest of a Muslim woman who refused to take off her head scarf at a court security checkpoint. According to the AP report, Valentine violated a court policy that prohibits people (Not only muslim women you'll notice) from wearing any headgear in court. Valentine's husband, Omar Hall, said his wife was accompanying her nephew to a traffic citation hearing when officials stopped her at the metal detector and told her she would not be allowed in the courtroom with the head scarf, known as a hijab. Hall said Valentine, told the bailiff that she had been in courtrooms (this court? or just courts) before with the scarf on and that removing it would be a religious violation. When she turned to leave and uttered an expletive, Hall said a bailiff handcuffed her and took her before the judge. The judge ordered Lisa Valentine, 40, to serve 10 days in jail for contempt of court.

And of course, the waterworks of a BS cause followed, kinda like those two stupid teen tarts going for their 15 minutes of fame for saying they were thrown off the airline for, and I quote, "being to pretty." Their words, not mine. "I just felt stripped of my civil, my human rights," Valentine told The Associated Press on Wednesday from her home, after she said she was unexpectedly released once CAIR got involved. Jail officials declined to say why she was freed.

I'll tell you why... for the same candy-assed reasoning that the LAPD scrapped it's plans to locate terrorists with the assistance of the muslim community itself.

Religion of Peace, my ass.

AIG's Response To Concerns About Sharia Complaint Financing

A few days back, I pointed you to an article by Jeffery Immon who had brought to our attention, that AIG was now offering a Sharia Compliant product here in the U.S. There was even a petition to sign regarding the issue. Since we're all now technically part 'owners' of AIG, via our taxpayer dollars, it was well within our right to make some noise over the issue.

And, as the American Congress for Truth has noted, the customary computer generated politically correct response has been issued on the topic. This response was sent to one of the many people who contacted AIG over the Sharia issue;

“We received your email expressing your concern over our announcement that we would begin marketing Takaful insurance products in the United States.

AIG operates around the world and endeavors to provide products that meet the diverse needs of its 74 million customers living in 130 countries and jurisdictions.

Marketing to specific ethnic constituencies is not new or unique to AIG. For instance, AIG businesses have tailored programs for a range of religious organizations, including Methodist churches and synagogues. The concept of Takaful is similar the concept of reciprocal exchange, or mutual insurance. What makes the structure somewhat different is that premiums are held in non-interest-bearing accounts, and any excess profit is distributed back to the policyholders or given to charity. While the Takaful structure is desirable to those whose religious convictions preclude them from engaging in traditional interest-bearing structures, Takaful is also increasingly popular among non-Muslims who feel that the excess charitable aspect is a socially responsible mechanism for the purchase of insurance. In the United States, AIG plans to direct excess profits to U.S. based charitable organizations. These policies are standard homeowners’ policies and are guided by U.S. law. The funds for these policies are held in Shariah-compliant, non-interest bearing accounts at HSBC. We hope this addresses your concerns.”

As you can see, standard BS to try and keep their 'sensitive appendages' out of the wringer.

Sorry, but not buying it. And for some of the same reasons ACT brings up; They usually compare shariah-compliant products to special products offered to other religious groups, and they almost always characterize the shariah-compliant product as “socially responsible.” Note AIG’s comparison to “Methodist churches and synagogues” and the phrase “socially responsible mechanism.”

Ah heck, ACT says it all better than I do, so I'll just cut/paste the remainder of their analysis on the subject. It'll read a bit better as well.

There are at least three problems with AIG’s response.

1.) The comparison to “Methodist churches and synagogues” is faulty. Methodist churches and synagogues do not require financial products that advance religious law that oppresses women and has at its core the call to jihad, as shariah-compliant products do. “Shariah-compliant” is just that – in compliance with Shariah law. The tenets of Shariah Islamic law include permission for forced child marriages, the beating of disobedient women, death sentences for Muslims who chose to convert away from Shariah Islam, and the obligation to wage offensive military Jihad against non-Muslims. By offering shariah-compliant products AIG, whether knowingly or unwittingly, is legitimizing and, by extension, endorsing shariah law. Think of it this way. Would AIG offer a product that was “apartheid compliant”? Of course not, because AIG would know that doing so would legitimize apartheid. To argue that a company can offer a product that is “compliant” with shariah law, but is not legitimizing shariah law, is disingenuous. So we repeat, AIG is either knowingly or unwittingly legitimizing a religious law system that oppresses women and is animated by jihad.

2.) The advisory board for AIG’s Shariah-compliant insurance includes Muhammed Imran Usmani, the son and disciple of Muhammed Taki Usmani. The elder Usmani is a “who’s who” in the Islamist world and an outspoken proponent of aggressive jihad. For example, he has issued numerous fatwas (religious rulings) that provide material support for terrorism. What “socially responsible mechanism” does AIG provide to “Methodist churches and synagogues” that has an advisory board which includes the disciple of an internationally-known advocate for terrorism? Let’s use the apartheid example again. Would AIG offer a product that had an advisory board which included the son and disciple of an internationally-known advocate for apartheid? Of course not.

3.) Note this statement in AIG’s response: “In the United States, AIG plans to direct excess profits to U.S. based charitable organizations.” Shariah-compliant finance requires such charitable giving to go to Muslim charities. Who directs where the money goes? The Shariah-compliant advisory board, which in this case includes the son and disciple of an internationally-renowned advocate of terrorism. But that’s only one problem. Currently over two dozen Muslim charities have been identified by the U.S. government as having links to terrorist organizations. How many other Muslim charities have links to terrorist organizations and have not yet been identified? The recent convictions in the Holy Land Foundation terrorism-financing trial illustrate the complex web that some Muslim charities have created to funnel charitable contributions to terrorist organizations. What AIG is thus doing is offering a financial instrument that may very well wind up as a conduit for funds to terrorist organizations. Even if that never occurred, why would a company want to put itself in such a position? Why would a company want to entangle itself with the son and disciple of an advocate for terrorism? Why would a company even take the chance that a financial product it offers could end up serving as a conduit for funds to terrorist organizations? How is this “socially responsible”? What’s more, doesn’t AIG recognize that, if funds from its shariah-compliant product did end up going to terrorist organizations, it could be facing, at best, a public relations nightmare, and at worst, lawsuits alleging negligence, and even criminal investigations?

This is no mere hypothesis. David Yerushalmi, a legal expert on the issue of shariah law, has written a lengthy legal article spelling out the potential civil and criminal liabilities for companies that engage in shariah-compliant finance. (To read the article click here).

Like I said, reads better than I could have spelled it out.

Thanks to the American Congress for Truth for providing this info.

I Guess This Obama Birth Thing Isn't Settled Afterall

I'll keep this relatively short, since there's not a lot of input I can add to this situation. A few days back, I did my little ditty on the Obama birth issue, that pretty much closed my chapter on it. I was part of the questioners, who pondered if he was even a viable U.S. citizen to even be President. Then our wonderful media misrepresented (how often does that happen, right?) the SCOTUS tossing out a motion on the issue. Which, even after a little digging, gave the same result.

If you read the comments section of that previous blog entry I did, commenter TED laid out what actually was tossed, and what is still pending. And in some respects, WHY. The others are, more or less, just mindless ramblings by those wishing to make noise. 'Trolls' if you will. Myself excluded of course.

Then recently, Human Events sent out an e-mailer, labeling any in the Conservative bracket, 'Turncoats' for not being on the bandwagon. This did nothing for me, other than to tick me off! Here, even though I didn't totally dig McCain, I voted for him anyways. As he was better than the 'other option' given us. And now, I'm a turncoat? Needless to say, I dropped a note to the editors of Human Events regarding this. Here's the text of what I sent;

To whom it may concern:

I just received today my standard e-mailer as I usually do from Human Events. It was entitled "TurnCoat Conservatives."

As a Conservative, I too was also rather dismayed that Obama had won the election. And I did in fact look into the Birth certificate/citizenship/certification issue that arose regarding president elect Obama. I had seen the shoty copy of the document posted on the fight-the-smears website, which aided in prompting my doubts about Obama.

But I had also seen the copy posted on FactCheck.org:
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/born_in_the_usa.html

This has all the "questioned" attributes available to view, that the aforementioned did not. For me, that was enough for the most part, to quell my interest in the issue. And I'm finding it an affront that those like me, are being chastened for no longer being on the proverbial bandwagon to further push this issue, such as the "turncoat" e-mail pronounces.

If anyone has issued "...personal insults and ad hominem attacks..." as the e-mail refers to, It's the writer of the e-mailer that's done it.

WHAT EVIDENCE EXISTS, that those who are continuing to press this issue have to go on? I want/need to know. If it is yet another "trufer" situation such as Philip Berg who claims to have info, but has of yet to release any of it, then I want no part in it. If there is something tangible that I CAN SEE FOR MYSELF, actual evidence, visible proof, then I will be willing to resume the clarion call for legal action regarding Obama.

Until then, I see no further need to pursue the matter on my end. The case is closed as far as I'm concerned unless something is produced, made available for the average citizens like myself to review.

John

Well guess what? Another e-mailer has arrived from Human Events today. In which, a little more 'clarification' is given as to what the suit filers (which are growing in number by the way) are specifically after. Was my e-mail responsible for the further clarification? I seriously doubt it, nor do I even want any credit for it. But I'm guessing that many others may have written similar notes to Human Events, prompting more explanation.

As it turns out, what is shown on the FightTheSmears web site, (and thereby, FactCheck.org) and resides there to this day, is a CERTIFICATION of Live Birth. What Donofrio, Wrotnowski and many others are after, is a vaulted copy of a CERTIFICATE of Live Birth. Apparently, there is a vast difference. What you can see on the FightTheSmears site, (and FactCheck) is a certification, POSING AS a certificate. A certification is being described as an, anyone who files for it, can get it, sheet of paper. An actual certificate, holds vastly larger amounts of vital info, such as who the attending physician at birth was, what hospital was the birth at, time of birth, attending midwife, etc, etc, etc.

Now, this isn't to say I'm going to hop right on the 'let's get Obama' train. But now, my curiosity is once again elicited. And I'll be keeping an eye on the issue. Who knows, perhaps we will see this issue resolved PRIOR TO January 20th, with a more 'acceptable' result.

Thank The Maker: $14B Auto Bail-Out Dies In Senate

And to borrow a Warner Bros. animation phrase, "And that's a GOOD thing Axel!" Whether people want to believe it or not, the Senate denying passage of the $14B auto industry bail-out, was exactly what was needed. Now the have no choice but to utilize the CORRECT course of action. That same course than any one of us would be mandated to follow if our particular businesses were going belly up. It's the course of action, that should have been taken in the first place. And that's to file for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection. Had they done this weeks ago, rather than hold their embarrassing "fly-in" to ask for freebies, they'd most likely have their restructuring plans done by now.

So now comes the time, for some serious house cleaning. To rid the balance sheets of all the excessive contractual burdens brought upon by the United Auto Workers Union. And just as importantly, to rid the companies of the exaggerated compensation scales being enjoyed by the upper echelons of industry management. Now they can pretty much strip away all the unnecessary costs. Would any one care to buy a corporate jet? Or four?

Sure, thee are going to be some tough times ahead. For both the auto industry and its entities, like car dealers, parts manufacturers, etc. Of course it's going to hit hard, the families of those employed by the Big-3. And surely, some significant belt-tightening will be undertaken on all fronts in this mess. But they, as well as the rest of America, will eventually get through it. Just as they ALWAYS do. And as always, it will be accomplished under a FREE MARKET system. Not the socialistic crap the Dem's continue to push on us.

No, we do NOT want big brother getting their hands on anymore of the American market system than they already have. Companies rise, companies fall. And no company is "too big" to fail.

Those that were for the bail-outs, (mostly Dem's, but some Rep's,) keep ignoring the obvious problems inherent with hand, erm, I mean bail-outs. And I don't mean the overt problem of the UAW's campaign contributions vanishing since the bail-out was rejected. I'm referring to the load placed upon average taxpaying Americans. According to the UAW, they essentially believe we all need to pay them;

"Republicans, breaking sharply with President George W. Bush as his term draws to a close, refused to back federal aid for Detroit's beleaguered Big Three without a guarantee that the United Auto Workers would agree by the end of next year to wage cuts to bring their pay into line with U.S. plants of Japanese car makers. The UAW refused to do so before its current contract with the automakers expires in 2011."

And there you have it. The UAW believes the rest of America SHOULD BE footing the bill for them for the next two plus years. That's their belief, not mine. But all is not lost in their cause it seems. For some ungodly reason, the White House is considering dipping into the remaining stash of the $700B bail-out, to make this auto-fiasco happen.

So say we do hand the auto industry a wad of cash, along with this nifty newly created position of a "CAR-CZAR." Then what? The UAW gets to keep chugging along as if nothing happened? Siphoning the very life out of yet another industry? Think about this for a moment. Seriously. Do you really want one person, or a small (elite class) of government people making all the decisions about how cars are to be made? Does the phrase, "we can make cars in any color, as long as they're all black" sound familiar? You recall all that wasted government spending? Stuff like $1,400.00 for a hammer. $26,000.00 for a toilet seat nonsense? Do you really want them to be in charge of building cars now? Large items with flammables liquids and electronics in them?

What do you expect the cost of a "government mandated and designed" car to cost, once the auto industry has been nationalized as the banks are now becoming? It might actually be cheaper to own one of those corporate jets.

Ahhh, there it is. I can see it. Your starting to get the picture....

F/A-18 Hornet Fighter Bomber Crash: Four Confirmed Deceased

I really, REALLY do hope there is a good explanation for this incident. Something that was completely beyond the Marine Pilot's control, that lead to this tragic incident. Otherwise, it will just end up becoming more fodder for good 'ol John "our Marines are murderers" Murtha to toss around. And since all the articles are a tad bit vague, it could possibly be him already digging to see if he can slander our troops. But for now, I'll give him the benefit of the doubt. Unlike he gave to our now completely exonerated Haditha Marines. But all that shows in any article is;

"A high-ranking congressman on Tuesday called on the Marine Corps to release the maintenance records of all its F/A-18D Hornet fighters after one of the jets lost power and crashed into a neighborhood, killing four members of a single family."

Which is then immediately followed by commentary regarding Duncan Hunter. "Rep. Duncan Hunter, the ranking Republican on the House Armed Services Committee, said the fiery crash of the fighter on Monday apparently was caused by "power failure" and was likely unrelated to the previous discovery of cracks in hinges on the wings of more than a dozen of the $57-million aircraft."

Make of that what you will. I'll need to see if the "high ranking" Congressman is ever specifically identified. That should clear the air on that issue.

But to date, it turns out the missing individual has been found. Bringing the full death toll to four. All members of the same family. Dong Yun Yoon, whose family it was that perished in the incident, has said he has been praying for the pilot of the aircraft, and that he holds no animosity towards him. That's a strong man there. Dong went on to say that he doesn't want the pilot to suffer from this event, and called him a 'treasure.' "I don't want him to suffer from this accident," Mr Yoon said. "I know he's one of our treasures for the country. And I don't blame him, I don't have any hard feelings."

You want to know what a real man should look/sound like? You just witnessed it.

The pilot is currently in stable condition in a Naval Hospital.

The pilot had been returning from training on the carrier USS Abraham Lincoln off the coast, when he was attempting to land at Miramar Air Base after a right engine failure. When the left engine failed, the pilot was left with little if any choice but to eject from the aircraft. Investigators will be reviewing the information from the flight data recorder recovered from the wreckage. There was no indication the pilot had been using alcohol or drugs.

Finally: Obama Citizenship / Birth Issue Put To Rest

It's finally done and over with. The big to do, over of president-elect B. Hussein Obama's citizenship has finally been laid to rest. The dead horse a few people have been beating, has ultimately been put out of its misery. We can now, officially, ignore the rest of the hullabaloos about Obama's COLB, or the birth certificate, or what his citizenship really is. It's been vetted for all it was worth.

The Supreme Court of the United States has rejected a suit brought against Obama regarding his citizenship, that claimed he was actually of British citizenry. FactCheck.org, which occasionally screws things up, has posted images of Obama's actual, held, touched, examined, birth certificate. Hawaiian officials have done all the confirming they could possibly do in the matter.

It's done. It's over. It's no longer an issue. Period.

It's about time too, as even I, (who would love to see this socialist removed before even taking office,) was getting a bit tired of the endless diatribe.

And I do fully admit, I had my doubts about Obama's citizenship as well. And something is still kinda tugging at my skepticism string. And yes, I was part of the 'questioning the validity' crowd. Mostly because of the shoty images that had been posted that were supposed to be Obama's COLB. That's what caused the most of my distrust on the issue. Here are a couple articles I did do on the topic. (Article 1, Article 2). But, as you can see by my request in them to simply produce the original to clear the air, I kept my skepticism to just that, 'questioning.' Unlike that of Leo Donofrio whose suit was the one rejected by the SCOTUS. Or the Hillary Clinton nut job, Philip Berg who also had filed suit and was rejected.

Don't get me wrong here. I still don't support Obama by any measure. And I doubt he will accomplish anything other than extending our recession into a D-pression. Just like good 'ol Frankie Roosevelt did with his 'new plan.' And I really would prefer we had someone 'other than' Obama entering the White House next month, who actually has at least a tad bit of experience under his belt.

But I'd also prefer it was done through realistic means.

DoDo Do Do Do... Another (The Los Angeles) TIMES Bites The Dust!

And another Times gone, and another Times gone! Another Times bites the dust! Hey lookout!... Well, not exactly biting the dust, but I think you got the gist of the Los Angeles Times situation from the preceding. And hey, to a Conservative Republican like me, it's the next best thing to it. Now we just get to sit back and watch the infighting between rival print outlets because of it. It always puts an extra spring in my step when a major Liberal Media outlet get its shorts caught in the proverbial wringer of life.

Or should I use the more accurate term of 'panties' instead of shorts?

Anyways, a short while back, we got to see a bit of a feeding frenzy amongst the cannibalistic media when the New York Times had its own stock reduced to the trash pile. "JUNK STATUS for New York Times!" in one form or another, echoed through the halls of the left, and the bloodbath began. It appears the New York Times holds a grudge, as they get to return the favor as the Tribune company, owners of the Los Angeles Times are flirting with BANKRUPTCY. I bet the NYTimes is just licking its chops, as it watches the LATimes go "Dead man walking" to the financial gallows.

As found in the NYTimes article the Tribune Company, which also owns the Chicago Tribune, has been attempting to renegotiate with its creditors. It has also enlisted the assistance of advisers, including the law firm of Lazard and Sidley Austin. It's unknown at this time if this is just a bargaining tool maneuver, or if they really expect to go tits-up.

Many factors are plaguing the Tribune Company at this time. The expected sale of the Chicago Cubs for one, has been delayed indefinitely, as the highest bidder, Mark Cuban faces insider trading charges. And just as the New York Times had seen, a steep decline in advertising due to both the "recession" and more readers going online rather than to the print pages has taken a toll.

But for us, 'tis a momentary visitation to the days of olde Roma, whence the gladiators again battle to the death in the Amphitheatrum Flavium. Will the Los Angeles Times persevere, and live to fight another day? Or will it be left bloodied, dismembered and dying on the Colosseum's dirt field?

The suspense is killing me.

A Stimulus Package I Can Get Behind: A 2-Month Tax Holiday

But of course, Madame NO will never allow a proposal like this to get past her. Her and her stooge Harry (tourists stink) Reid. Especially since it's puts the taxpayers money right were it belongs. Back in the taxpayers hands. The only type of wealth redistribution she and her cronies are interested in, is the redistribution FROM our hands to theirs. But out of all the proposals I've heard or seen of, this by far is the one that best holds my attention. And Rep. Louie Gohmert will need your assistance to get it pushed though.

Rep. Louie Gohmert, is proposing as a stimulus package, a full two (2) month tax holiday. Simple. Straightforward. Easy to understand. Two months of paying no taxes. Zippo, zilch, nada. How much easier an idea can you get than that? Other than to simply start trimming the fat out of Washington. As they should be doing anyways.

To get an idea of HOW MUCH, a plan like this would yield the average person, take your monthly gross income, (before any tax deductions) and multiply that by 66. Nice, huh?

And where does Rep. Louie Gohmert plan to fund this from? Why, the remaining $350 Billion TAXPAYER dollars intended for the bail-outs. Yeah, the big bail-out that none of us wanted in the first place? That TAXPAYER funded bail-out? Rep. Gohmert is essentially saying with this proposal, "Give the money, BACK to the taxpayer!" God Bless that man. Honestly.

But in order for Rep. Gohmert to make this happen, he needs your support. You can sign an online petition in support of his proposal. You can find it HERE. Text link;
https://redstate.kimbia.com/taxholiday

Unlike the last crapola stimulus, which was a mere couple hundred dollars a person, this has the potential to put THOUSANDS of dollars, which you've already earned I might add, back into your own pockets. Pelosi and the bunch doubt you are capable of spending your money wisely. Or what they would say is, better than they can. So it will obviously be fought tooth and nail. So make your voice heard. Even if it doesn't manage to get passed, it will at least be a signal to those who are 'supposedly' representing us, to stop wasting OUR hard earned dollar.

Now where was that link for that 52" monitor I was drooling over last week?

Anti-Jihad Blog: AIG Promotes Sharia Compliant Finance

And once again we arrive at one of those moments (which seem to be rapidly growing in number) where I get to say, "I wish I wasn't right so often." Not out of conceit, but out of sorrow for what's happening to our country. And of course, there are always the wave of the usual dissenters, with their standard mantras of 'hater, bigot, etc,' trying to claim I know nothing of what real Islam is.

Sorry but, I've lived there, I've seen that, I know better than you do. So don't try it.

At least there's the benefit that someone else got to this story before I did. Damn that author, Jeffery Immon typed this out fast. Grats to ya Jeff, but I'm gonna 'borrow' some of your content.

8^)

Immon got this up on the Anti-Jihad Blog yesterday and made no bones about the title, "AIG Defies U.S. Taxpayers by Promoting Sharia in America." It pretty much spells out what we can expect from the rest of the companies in America, unless Americans speak up and do something about it. And guess what? We really CAN do something. At least, about this particular one with AIG. Why, you may ask? Because, we OWN it. Remember? AIG received a nifty little $85Billion taxpayer funded bailout. All Americans now OWN stock in AIG. We're all shareholders now. We may not individually sit on it's Board of Directors, but $40Billion plus worth of stockholders is a lot of sway.

And I say let's put that sway to use. There's an online petition available for use, that can be found HERE. Text link;

http://www.petitiononline.com/stopaig/petition.html

You can also put those extra minutes you have available on your phones to use by calling either AIG's Public Relations Manager Peter Tulupman at (212) 770-3141. Or you can contact the guy listed on AIG's press release, Jim Crain at (617) 345-4105. Thanks to ACT For America for providing the contact info. Here's some more on AIG's Sharia compliance from ACT for America.

Just some background info for those who don't know what Sharia Compliant Finance (SCF) is. It's, in a nutshell, an Islamic supremacist, segregationist, political ideology. This is basically the same ideology that got a 13 year old girl MURDERED, because she was raped. And whose 'Shariah Courts' convicted and killed a woman for adultery. Is this the type ideology we want running free in America? I don't.

And I'd wager that you don't either.

Amnesty For Illegals... Again: I Told You This Wasn't Going Away

As surely as I'm sitting here typing this, elements in Washington D.C. are once again clamoring for an Amnesty moratorium. Even 'Mr. Walking Foot in Mouth Disease' Harry Reid has managed to stammer out another call for Amnesty between his recurring gaffes. And Reid doesn't seem to believe there will be any fight whatsoever this time. Interesting. He said the same thing last Amnesty, when he was seen scooting away, tail tucked firmly between his legs. Unfortunately, he could actually be a little closer to correct this time around, as McCain has already had a publicized 'meeting' with Obama.

So say hello to a newly legalized, nationalized, Americanized, low wage work force. More than happy to continue driving the unemployment rates in America, upwards. Especially among the Hispanic-American workforce. Yeah, Hispanics in America (Legal American Hispanics, that is) already have a fairly high unemployment rate as it is. Upwards of 9%, as compared to other ethnicity's. As it stands, there's about 7 million jobs in America that are 'temporarily' tied up with illegal alien occupancies. I say temporarily, as in any amount of those could be deported at any time. But to permanently tie those jobs up, it wouldn't be good for the economy is all I'll say for now.

As found on NumbersUSA, and the related NumbersUSA blog; "Pro-amnesty grassroots leaders held a press conference this morning to ask Congress and the new Administration for an immediate moratorium on workplace enforcement action and a renewed effort on "comprehensive immigration reform" (see Roy Beck's related blog). They are claiming the election showed Americans want an amnesty for illegal aliens and the businesses that hire them instead of citizens and legal residents. 500 of these leaders are now visiting Congressional offices to make personal appeals. Please call your Representative and two Senators (202-224-3121) to tell them the country needs interior enforcement, but does not want to amnesty illegal aliens, particularly when ten million Americans can't find a job."

E-Verify. It Works. Period. It's working in Arizona pretty well. And tens of thousands of illegals (upwards of over a million) have left the country over the last year. Which poses a problem for us here in California, which does NOT use E-verify. A lot of illegals came to my state. And with about 10 million illegals already residing here, .... let's just say, high school kids aren't getting the summer jobs at Taco Bell for a while. If ever. Thanks Mr. Antonio (ex-gang member turned ACLU lawyer, repeatedly sued the city of Los Angeles on behalf of gang members and later become its Mayor and turned the city into a Sanctuary city for illegals and made it illegal for Police to ask for residence verification) Villaraigosa.

But as Roy correctly points out, "The question you rightfully ask is this: If amnesty would hurt Hispanic Americans so much, why are these Hispanic leaders pushing it? The answer is pretty ugly: These Hispanic leaders are more enthusiastic in creating more Democratic voters out of the amnestied illegals and in creating more members for their Hispanic organizations than they are in helping struggling Hispanic-American families." Yeah, the answer is pretty ugly. But it's also about as truthful and straightforward as it gets. Just like the Dem's, they really don't give a crap about the populace, the 'common man' so to speak. If they did, they wouldn't turn into the ghosts they do, to come back to haunt their constituency with bad legislation and taxes.

The remedy is a simple one. Attrition Through Enforcement. Implement E-verify nation wide. Enforce the laws regarding illegal immigration. Build the wall. Yes, illegals will still be able to filter in through various means. But at least the tide will be stemmed to a trickle. America will have the opportunity to get back on it's financial feet. And the charity that Americans are known for (which is more than any other nation in the world, regardless of what the New York Times says) will be able to continue.

Lil' St. Louis, Grab Yer Guns: Finally Someone Is Getting It Right

And grab them the citizens of St. Louis should, in mass. St. Louis is ranked fourth in the 'most dangerous cities to live in' listings. Which is actually an improvement I hear. They were number one last year. So far this year alone, (that's 2008 for those with difficulties) St. Louis has had 157 Homicides as of this writing. And city Alderman, Quincy Troupe is making a call for the public to arm themselves. His district in St. Louis has suffered nine of those homicides alone. Which is more than any other district in St. Louis. It's on course to equal the record of 11. He is simply unsatisfied (as I'm sure many others are) with the results by local Law Enforcement.

So, Troupe has now called upon the citizenry of his district to get a gun to defend themselves. And he points out a few notable reasons for doing so.

First off as Troupe mentions, is the inefficiency of the Police Department themselves. Millions of dollars had been allocated by St. Louis to hire 125 new Police Officers, to aid in curbing the crime rate plaguing St. Louis. That's a considerable bump in coverage. Even in St. Louis. But instead of hiring more Officers, the money ended up being doled out to the existing staff in the form of raises and the like. Now why were raises necessary? In the current economic mess we supposed to be going through, wouldn't simply keeping, or having a job for that matter, be a bit more important than getting a pay raise?

Another point Troupe points out, was that 911 calls in St. Louis often go to an answering service... An answering service? Are you kidding me? I can just picture it now... "[Caller] Help, someone is breaking into my home with an axe! I need the Police NOW!.. [Automated Reply] Please press 1 to continue in English.... [beep]....... If this is an Emergency, please hang up and dial 911, or stay on the line and one of our representatives will be with you shortly. [Muzak pause]..... Calls are taken in the order received. You are caller 93,458. Your expected wait time is 3 weeks and 4 days. Thank you for your patience, and we look forward to serving you. [Muzak again]"

Not a pretty picture in my opinion. But one of the most damning statements I've heard against the anti-gun crowds arguments, like the ones against Troupe's gun call, was made during the recent D.C. 'right to carry' case. It was made by one of the plaintiffs, "What would you rather have in an emergency? A phone, or a gun. Oh, you can call the police, and they'll show up to draw a chalk outline of your corpse, in whatever condition it's left in. You can always look for a phone after you stop an intruder."

Of course there's always the usual dissent against anything that allows for people to indulge themselves in their Constitutional Right. Like carry firearms. "Statistics show, statistics show..." Yet, they never actually produce those statistics that indeed, show. So I'll produce a response for the statistics crowd; "statistics are a liar’s best friend and liars know that better than anyone." Or more simply put, Criminals don't care or obey Gun Laws. Criminals prefer to target an unarmed citizenry. (i.e., Washington D.C. and their chart topping violent crime rate.) Crime is the problem, not the inanimate object, like guns. And, as the Supreme Court of the United States recently and very correctly ruled, 'The Right to Keep and Bear, shall not be infringed.'

So props to you Alderman Troupe. It's nice to see someone is finally getting it. That an armed citizenry, is not a populace of victims. Like the victim populace Kennedy was trying to create;

U.S. Code Title 22 section 2551, which was passed as Public Law 87-297 by President Kennedy in 1961, lays out the plan to completely disarm both citizens and governments of the world. Section 2552 defines disarmament this way: "identification, verification, inspection, limitation, control, reduction, or elimination, of armed forces and armaments of all kinds under international agreement including the necessary steps taken under such an agreement to establish an effective system of international control, or to create and strengthen international organizations for the maintenance of peace."

Some more HERE.

Bail-Out De Ja Vu: The Auto Industry Now Wants $34Billion

Just like AIG and the rest, bumping up the "what we need to survive" number, the auto industries Big-3 now want $34 Billion instead of the $25Billion they were previously pleading for. And odds are, the idiots in D.C. will most likely give it to them. 'Madame NO' was trying so hard (and failing miserably) to sound tough last night, about how they'd deal with the Auto-Exec's. But since a significant portion of their campaign funding comes from big labor, like the UAW, Pelosi's Congress will cave in. You know the Dem's aren't about to turn their backs on that giant campaign cash cow.

So like lambs being led to the slaughter, the taxpayers pocketbook will most probably be once again sacrificed to the gods of appeasement. And the concessions the auto-exec's are making, just aren't cutting it. Sorry, but a $1 a year salary isn't going to sway me. That only worked for Lee Iacocca, because he actually knew what he was doing. And making the trip to D.C. in hybrids in lieu of corporate jets (which they are now offering to sell) isn't going to be enough to persuade me either.

What would give me some interest in assisting the auto industry?

LETTING THEM FAIL!

We've been fed so much media propaganda crap about companies being "too big to fail," that I'm beginning to bleed profusely from the ears. All that bogus nonsense being circulated about Fannie and Freddie can't be allowed to go under was pure, unadulterated, crap. Let the auto-industry fail, so they can file for Chapter 11 Bankruptcy protection.

This WILL accomplish two significant things;

First off, and probably the most important, is the image it would provide to the populace. Also known as, the increasingly unrepresented masses who will inevitably be footing the bill for this travesty. Filing Chap.11, would put a "real" face on the auto industry, something people can actually relate to. It's no secret that the accurate perception of an auto industry bail-out, will only be a mediocre bandage for a much larger problem. Foregoing a bail-out and opting for bankruptcy, would show people how serious they are about resolving the real issues plaguing the industry. America by nature, is the most charitable nation on Earth by far. Even in times of strife, the majority still seems to reach down deep to eke out at least a little something for others. And they are more willing to "help" if they know it's a hand UP, not a hand OUT.

Secondly, and probably just as important, is the overly burdened contractual agreements that the auto industry has been toting along for years. And in many cases, decades. Under Chap.11, most of it can be kicked to the curb. They can pretty much crap-can just about all of the non-essential operational expenses. There's a reason why it only costs Toyota $45 an hour to build their cars, and $73 an hour to build a Ford. And you just read why. Extravagant contractual agreements.

The auto industry does NOT need $34 Billion. They don't even need $3 or $4 Billion. They need to be allowed to fall, pick themselves back up which is where any assistance would be needed, and move on.

It's time to clean house.

ADDED: Execs say bankruptcy won't work!

I'll add this here as I found it just before I hit Publish for this article. I recommend you read through it, to see exactly what I was saying;

Fritz Henderson, president and chief operating officer of GM, said that choosing the bankruptcy route would further erode consumer confidence in the automaker and "we want them to be confident in their ability to buy our cars and trucks."

News flash Fritz, they already have no confidence in your product, and don't have the money to pay the higher prices for them if they did. Dump the UAW burden to bring the cost of your product down, then they might start buying again.

And check out the immediately following comment made about the UAW;

At the same time, UAW leaders were immersed in intense discussions on possible givebacks for the companies at an emergency meeting in Detroit. Under consideration were the possibility of scrapping a much-maligned jobs bank in which laid-off workers keep receiving most of their pay and postponing the automakers' payments into a multi billion-dollar union-administered health care fund.

To quote the Soup Nazi, albeit a bit altered, "No Bail-out for Ju!"

Obama Win Doesn't Create Terrorism Lull: These People Really Exist?

I almost fell out of my chair I was laughing so hard when I read about this. I know these "walking dead" Obama-ists were deluded. Deceived is more the correct wording. But to think that these people actually believed that his win in November would bring about world peace? That terrorists would just give up and go home? That's truly a sad commentary in and of itself. I suppose they believe the stock market will skyrocket to it's highest recorded level ever on his inauguration day. And Iran and North Korea will forgoe any further Nuclear ambitions too.

Keep dreaming folks.

But sure enough, these types of people really do seem to exist. As witnessed in the following exchange between MS-LSD's Alex Witt and correspondent John Yang, found on the MRC site;



ALEX WITT: You know, John, and it's interesting because there are many who had such an optimistic and hopeful opinion of things, and you certainly can't expect things to change [snaps fingers] on a dime overnight, but there are many who suggested that with the outgoing Bush administration and the incoming Obama administration there would be something of a lull in terrorism attacks. There had been such a global outpouring of affection, respect, hope, with the new administration coming in, that precisely these kinds of attacks, it was thought -- at least hoped -- would be dampered down. But in this case it looks like Barack Obama is getting a preview of things to come.

JOHN YANG: He's -- it's a rude awakening, a very, sort of, sober reminder of what he's going to be facing in just a few weeks. And there is some concern also, there had been some concern, that during this period, during this, the transition period, between Election Day and Inauguration Day, that the enemies of the United States, those who don't care for the United States no matter who's leading it, would try and test the United States, would try to take advantage of this period, and I think that may be one thing that we're seeing right now.

WITT: Okay, John Yang there in Chicago, following President-elect Barack Obama's Thanksgiving Day dinner having been interrupted by all of this news from Mumbai. John, thank you very much.

Now come on people. How peaceful do you think it was really going to be. Especially when you have terrorist leaders themselves calling Obama outright a "House Negro." Then again, since regions in the middle east were far deeper into slavery than America could ever dreamed of, it would explain why they know of that phrase there. Kinda makes me wonder, with as much slavery went on in the middle east of the African nations, why so many of them (Black Americans) convert to islam.

Odder things happen I suppose.

The Experts Say Recession: Then How Do We Still Have Growth?

Doom and gloom, doom and gloom. That's all we've heard for months on end now from the media. How horrible things are. Housing is in the pits. Unemployment skyrocketing. The world is about to come to an end essentially. Sounds like a Chicken-Little scenario to me to be honest. I guess the up side is, that it wasn't global whining that destroyed the world, eh?

But seriously though, will someone please explain how we are in a recession, when we've been seeing growth? According to CNN this morning, the financial "experts" say we've been in a recession since December of 2007. Okay, so why, during the same broadcast, did they have a money guru on saying that this years sales were up 3% from this same time last year? Hmmm, this same time last year was when the recession started. And this same time last year, sales were up 2% from the previous year. And the GDP (this same time last year) itself was up a whole 2% as well...

And we're in a recession?

How does this work?

Unemployment, or at least a good portion of it is easily explained away. It's called minimum wage increases. If the Dem's would stop taxing the piss out of us, they wouldn't have to keep increasing the minimum wage. Keynesian Economics says it's okay to go into a deficit to get over a hump. But you go back to NON-deficit spending once the hump is dealt with. You hear that Congress? Stop spending it, if you don't have it. More taxes are NOT the answer.

And the housing issue. Don't even get me started on that. People are pointing at everyone and everything as the culprit, except where the blame truly belongs. Barney Frank (D-Mass) and his bed buddy in Fannie Mae. You can add to that, Maxine Waters and a few other (D)'s getting sweetheart deals, like Dodd. And let us not forget that overtly failed initiative known as the CRA. How many banks were forced to issue bad paper, or be sued. Thanks for your participation there, Mr. (Harvard grad lawyer) Obama.

Add to the mix, the Auto Industry exec's head back to capitol hill today to plead for a $25B bailout. When what they really need is to file bankruptcy to get out of the strangle-hold of the UAW.

But it's all well and good I suppose. One thing is for certain. The media will be pronouncing the recession is over on Obama's inauguration day, that's for sure. Oh I have no doubt, that Obama's ascension to the throne will have magical effects on the market, and everything will be just peachy-keen from day one of his majesties rule. In reality, if it's any kind of hint, the market has tanked further than in any point in history since his election.

Go figure.

The American (State Run Media) Journalist

Should we just save everyone the effort and start calling American media outlets by names such as TASS? Or perhaps Pravda? It really should come as no surprise to anyone, anyways. So might as well start calling it as it's seen. Even Democrats themselves have openly acknowledged how "in the tank" the media had been for Obama. So much for fair and balanced reporting, eh? And once president-elect Oba-ma-ster ascends to the throne, I'm picturing North Korea or China styled media from then on.

I'm actually a little surprised that the call hasn't already gone out amongst the media elite, to unite under the banner of "uphold the holy anointed one" already. They've been doing it for the last decade plus. And never as dearly as they had done for the disciple of "Hope & Change." Not that any of them are bothering to report how not much, in the way of change is coming, judging by the Cabinet members he's selected thus far. Most of which have been Clinton hand-me-downs. He's even now put Hillary herself on his Crusaders for Socialism team.

Go figure. Gotta keep her from running against him again next round some how.

I guess this is what we get for letting our guard down, and allowing Communism to creep it's way into American society. Take over the schools, take over Hollyweird, take over the various forms of news media. All of which we've now been witness to. And we just sat back and let it happen. McCarthy was right it turns out. Sure enough, the ownership of America is passing to foreign holdings at an increasingly rapid rate. I just wonder how much of America the Dem's are willing to share with/through Sharia Finance?

And our media is bending over backwards to aid this intrusion. That crusty old senile Pinko, Ted Turner has even recently hailed the USSR, more notably the KGB, as being Honorable...? And proceeds directly into using the standard mantra of "It's America's fault." Thanks Ted. Remind me to cross you off my Christmas card list. For those who don't know, this is Mr. CNN himself. James Earl Jones has got to be rolling in his grave...

"The most TRUSTED name in news," .... my a$$.

American Freedom Hangs By A Thread: Democrats Want Filibuster Proof Majority

And boy do they ever want it bad. So much so, they can taste it. Only two seats shy of a filibuster proof majority in the House, the Obamassiah's minions have flooded into Georgia. Their mission: to oust the incumbent, Republican Rep Saxby Chambliss[GA-8]. After that, all they have to do is trump up a few hundred more "conveniently misplaced" votes for that numpty Franken in Minnesota. You know, the boxes full of absentee ballots conveniently forgotten in the back seat of someones car. Then, they'll have their majority.

I wonder if any Disney characters or Dallas Cowboy's, will be amongst ACORN's latest batch to show up in Minn. as well.....

So what, you say? Who cares if they get a whatchamacallit majority?

Well, if you happen to be one of those folks that places any value on anything you hold dear, you should be caring. A LOT. There's a nifty little amendment (in the governments view, that is) in the Constitution. It's number 16 in the list of Amendments. It's kind of a catch-all that allows the government to tax the living bejezuss out of us at will. THEIR will. (I have a little about this one HERE.) And your say in any new taxes is pretty minimal. Actually, it's non-existent. If they want to impose a 75% Federal Income Tax, they can do it. Unless of course, they are stopped from within. Hence, filibusters by other Rep's. Otherwise, the taxes get created and WE all pay for it. If the Dem's get that majority, I hope you can afford to put off that dream vacation, indefinitely.

And no, VP-elect Joe (I live in a $4M rental, but I can relate to the common folk because I take a train every now and then) Biden, is not going to pick up that new tax tab for you, since he did in fact state, paying more taxes is patriotic. You know, he's almost right. Reasonable taxation, not even the staunchest of Conservatives argue against. But taxation without Representation? Didn't we have a little tiff with England about that about 230 or so years ago? A filibuster proof majority would essentially usher in that era once again, from right here within our own borders.

And I won't even bother with getting into all the legislation that will sail down the pike. But I think your getting the picture anyways.

Sleep tight, if you think you can....