Barack Obama: Not Qualified to be President (Caution: Birther Rant?)

Frank Fleming, of IMAO, and Pajamas Media, has an interesting theory on why Barack Obama is not Constitutionally qualified to be president -- he's really an eight year old girl.

From Frank:

"With the evidence suggesting that Obama is in fact female and no more than eight-years-old, his Hawaii certification is obviously a forgery, and our country is currently at great risk. Any day now, North Korea could offer to get him a pony in exchange for nuclear secrets, and that little girl Obama would probably jump at the offer (unless he’s scared of ponies). So we need to declare his presidency unconstitutional and eject him from office. But when we throw him out, we’d better buy him a new Barbie doll or something, or he’ll never stop crying."

Read the entire (hilarious) article here.

Obamalympics - will be held in Rio instead

Due to widespread crime in Chicago, where honor roll students are beaten to death by unruly mobs, and criminal landlords refuse to improve living conditions in their state-sponsored slums, the Olympics for 2016 were awarded to Rio instead, where you expect these things to happen, Rio being the largest city in barely third-world Brazil.

If you've been sitting under a rock you may have missed that the United States sent a delegation of Chitown glitterati to include Oprah, Mayor Daley, Michelle Obama (you may know her better as "The First Lady") and the President of Chicago (and the United States, too), Barack H. Obama.

Many (including such smart right-wing observers as myself and Rush Limbaugh) assumed that Obama's presence in the delegation meant it was "in the bag," so to speak.  After all, if the top politicos of Chicago-style politics couldn't secure a victory with a group of crooks like the IOC, how did they rise to the top of Chicago's power structure?

Obama disappoints, accepts resignation of nut-job Jones

Obama disappointed me today by doing what everyone said he would, allow 9-11 Truther, Whitey-hating, Communist, and all around idiot Van Jones, the "Green" jobs Czar, resign.

Jones, of course, like all good liberals and little communists, decided it wasn't his fault. All those crazy things he had said (and sung) that were inconveniently captured on You Tube (just one example) were the result of a “campaign” of “lies and distortions to distract and divide.” Michelle Malkin warns us to "Get ready for the coming media/left-wing martyrdom of Jones."

Watching Juan Williams (designated left-wing defender on Fox Sunday News), we saw the Left's alternate explanation of why Jones's statements and subsequent exit are not damaging to Obama - his position just wasn't that important, he really was just a low level staffer. Huh? The position was specially created for him. Spare me this one.

One of fave bloggers, Gateway Pundit, along with Glenn Beck really pushed this story, and are to be thanked for exposing and ridding us of one radical in the White House. If you get your news from the legacy media, tomorrow you may be reading about the whole thing, but for those who seek the Truth, they've been on this thing for a week.

Odds are, the most transparent administration in history (there's a laugher!) was lied to by Mr. Jones in his job interview - you know, the 63 question questionnaire where they actually ask (Question 61), "Have you had any association with any person, group or business venture that could be used – even unfairly – to impugn or attack your character and qualifications for government service?"

I guess it's plausible that Jones didn't think being a Communist or a whitey-hater would be something that could embarrass this crowd.

Anyway, Van Jones is just another radical exposed. How many more lurk in the current administration?

end...

Bam's Budget Busting Baloney

Karl Rove has a summary of Bam's budget, based on the CBO analysis. It's recommended reading for your Saturday.

Bottom line, deficits as far as the eye can see, government spending the greatest it's been (as a percentage of total GNP) since WW2, national debt eventually hitting 82% of the economy by 2019, spending increasing by $1T over ten years, and taxes that go up by $1.9T over the same period.

All in all, a recipe, pretty much, for disaster.

Read my super-summary, Rove's short summary, or the CBO's entire 59 page summary for yourself!

end...

Congrats to Phil, A pox on Obama

Congrats to Phil Mickelson, who had a big lead today, then blew it, then came back to win at the Northern Trust Open in L.A. Look out Phil and the rest of you golfers, Tiger is coming back, so you're all done.

In other news, the Obama administration this week is going to hold a "Fiscal Responsibility Summit."

No, I'm not kidding. Their idea of fiscal responsibility includes higher taxes on "the rich" and higher corporate taxes, too. This in the middle of our worst recession since 1979. They will do this by allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire in 2010. They say only those who had their marginal rates reduced from 39% back in 2002 will suffer. Seeing how they let Nancy Pelosi write the "stimulus" bill, is there any doubt that this time, too, we will see those entire tax cuts rescinded, which will mean higher tax payments for every single American who pays income taxes.

Since only about 50% pay income taxes anymore, that'll be politically palatable to them.

So, if you're one of those 50%, prepare to be screwed yet again by the messiah.

end...

Economics and Obama

Gateway Pundit helps put the lie to President Obama's claims that "the tired old policies of the last 8 years" are responsible for the current mess and that this is the "worst economy since the great depression."

Since those of us older than 40 are used to hearing these lies every 4 years from Democratic candidates, we have been through these all before. These are tactics used by Democrats to justify increased government spending and government involvement in your life, and to demonize conservative principles.

If they told the truth, they would be forced to admit that "the worst economy since the great depression" occurred because of Jimmy Carter's policies, and that the best way to grow an economy is by supply-side tax rate cuts (see: Kennedy, Reagan, Bush).

What these prove about President Obama is what we on the right tried to tell people prior to November 4th. This guy is not about "hope" or "change." He has dropped the "hope" meme (choosing, instead, "fear" and "catastrophe"), and the only change has been the level of corruption is back to Clintonian levels!

Welcome back, Dems!

More on the "Compromise"

“This compromise greatly improves the bill,” said Senator Susan Collins (RINO, ME).

That pretty much sums up just how rotten the Porkulus bill is. That some tinkering around the edges could greatly improve it shows just how much we need to get into this thing and fix it and change it's entire character from focusing on everyone's unfunded projects to what can really help the economy.

What has happened with this bill, and, I guess, why a bureaucrat like Obama can actually think it's a good thing and immediately necessary, is that every project that has never made the cut when we thought (semi-) rationally about appropriations has been dredged up in an effort to get money moving quickly, and to prevent the time it would take to actually consider worthwhile projects that would similarly get people working.

You know how this goes, because unless you are self-employed, you have seen this in big corporations or in the government. The end of the fiscal year approaches, and there is a big pot of money (I know in my old Corporate Behemoth it used to be capital dollars) left to spend, and you're told, "Spend it or lose it." Usually in the real world, there are worthwhile projects that you wanted to do, but probably either cut before or pared back, so this represents an opportunity to get those going again. In the government, it's an opportunity to do the same, but the projects usually should never have started in the first place (except in DoD, of course).

At any rate, this Porkulus is the same thing, and we have President Obama believing that when he requested "shovel ready" projects, that was what he was going to get. Instead, he may have gotten a few (hundred) billion dollars worth of those, but he also got a ton of crap, too.

I do not want to see this thing passed. If we were going to get some highway and construction projects moving quickly, and couple that with some serious tax reductions (reduce cap gains and the corporate tax rates, and even just making the Bush tax cuts permanent - check out the Senator Jim Demint, R-SC, American Options Plan), this might be more palatable. But, as it is, it is a bunch of pork that will not get mostly spent until 2010 and 2011 and the tax rebates are too weak to have any stimulative effect. So, by Nancy Pelosi's accounting, by this time next year, 5,000,000,000 (that's right 5B) Americans will be out of work.

Here are a couple of other things I want you folks to read:

• Mark Steyn on Obama - in which Steyn opines on the audacity of pork and hope
• On NPR's Morning Edition yesterday, there was much discussion about how the Porkulus money should be spent and who should spend it. One thing is for sure, Democrats don't want YOU to make those decisions, you ignoramouses. Remember this Bill Clinton gem (on the surplus, oh...happy days!), "We could give it all back to you and hope you spend it right... But ... if you don't spend it right, here's what's going to happen. In 2013 -- that's just 14 years away -- taxes people pay on their payroll for Social Security will no longer cover the monthly checks... I want every parent here to look at the young people here, and ask yourself, 'Do you really want to run the risk of squandering this surplus?' "
• Charles Krauthammer on how "Hope and Change" became "Disaster and Catastrophe"and the age of New Politics is really just the same old politics.
• Heritage Foundation on why this didn't work for Japan in the 1990's and left them in a decade-long recession
  

end...
...

Change has come, updated

Barack Obama promised change.

So far, things have changed. He has gotten at least one tax cheat, Timothy Geithner, confirmed for his cabinet where Bill Clinton had to withdraw nominations for similar (actually lesser) indiscretions. And, this is for the man who will lead the IRS.

Good work, Barack!

In an update, Barack Obama signed an Executive Order Wednesday putting into place new ethics rules that would greatly limit the ability for lobbyists to enter his administration, and for former Obama-admin people to work for lobbyists. Obama said, "The way to make government responsible is to hold it accountable."

However, that lasted until today, when the Deputy Sec-Def designate was given an exemption.

Hillary Clinton, of course, was confirmed, despite apparent conflicts of interests with foreign donations to the (Bill) Clinton library, and, Eric Holder will be confirmed despite either being a liar or an idiot.

Oh well. The Obama administration is going to hold their people to the same ethical standards as Nancy Pelosi's Congress.

I Don't Envy Barack Obama

I personally think George Bush has done a fine job as a wartime president, and I think he is at peace with the job he has done. I have supported him for 8 years (despite what he has done to Conservatism as a cause) because he was absolutely right on the War on Terror and he has prosecuted it in a steadfast manner.

In every war, leaders make mistakes at the strategic level, and one can argue that Iraq was either a strategic blunder, or a necessary cog in the larger GWOT. One can argue the rationale used all day long, and we have. My bottom line is it was hard to imagine fighting a "Global War On Terror" and not taking down Saddam Hussein during it at some point.

W was ridiculously married to his initial strategy in Iraq, which plainly wasn't working. It took David Petraeus and (yes) John McCain to get him to change. Fortunately, he listened to Petraeus and McCain was able to bring enough political pressure and fortitude to Bush to get him to change direction and lead us to the point we can now legitimately claim victory in Iraq. This Thnaksgiving weekend, we all owe a huge debt of thanks to these two men, and also to President Bush, but mostly to the troops on the ground, who still secure this peace.

Now, it will be up to BHO to bring this chapter to a conclusion with honor, dignity, and leaving intact the second functioning democracy in the Middle East.

Yet, BHO's job is not getting any easier, just as the most difficult of the initial GWOT battles draws to a close. This week's events in India demonstrate that Islamofascists are determined to shed blood in the name of their "cause." Russia is openly flaunting the Monroe Doctrine (hopefully Katie Couric has been briefed on it) and is rattling her saber at our friends in Eastern Europe. Afghanistan, which has suffered from too much success too soon, and now suffers from History (Brits, Russians, Americans?), demands his attention.

At home, the economy has taken its worse hit since 1979. Democrats are talking about an incerdible $800B stimulus package on top of the already nearly $1T spent on bank and financial bailouts. By the time these are done, there will be zero dollars remaining for any of BHO's domestic priorities.

Conservatives are buoyed that the economic crisis may force BHO to actually apply economics to his policies, vice pander for votes. It's a shame that we have to enter into a crisis to have Democrats acknowledge reality. Still, we could see bailouts of the automobile industry that keep the inflated wage scales of the UAW intact, amid other atrocities.

For those of you that voted for BHO, he does seem like a thoughtful person. That may serve us well, it may not.

If W fashioned himself the modern Lincoln or FDR wartime president, does BHO see himself as their "domestic" counterpart? Healing the nation's psychic wounds from slavery, and saving our financial mess?

I might advise BHO and his supporters that those two presidents had limited success in their agendas at home. Of course, reconstruction wasn't carried out by Lincoln, but we saw its legacy last through 1964 in law, and through today in perceptions. FDR's depression-era reforms were not all that successful, and hinder our economy to this day. While many were necessary and serve us well, I think it's safe to say the Federal beast was hatched by FDR.

Anyway, good luck President-elect Obama. You're going to need it.

Don't

Change?

Well, the Obamadministration is shaping up.

If you haven't been paying attention, this is really starting to look a lot like the Clinton administration, even including a Clinton (Hillary!) in the high level Sec'y of State post.

I guess if you're a conservative, like me, you're starting to think that this may not be so horrible after all. Let's face it, the Clinton years, economically, were not horrible years, and, if BHO decides he wants to be a free trader, wants to keep cap gains rates low, and only raises taxes on those making over $250k, it may not be really awful for the rest of us. Forget that those making over $250k will not hire more workers in their small businesses, will not spend as much on luxury items that the little guys build and sell, and won't invest their extra money in ventures that the little guys might want to start. But, given that a Marxist/Socialist won, it could be worse than Clinton III.

His economic team, while certainly left of center, is likely to be pragmatic and not likely to allow Obama to ruin the economy. So, I think we can take some solace there.

In foreign policy, I think most of us can agree the Clinton years were a disaster. Terrorism prospered, our president made an apology tour for slavery, and the military was emasculated.

Will Hillary make a difference there? Maybe. She has more balls than the rest of the Obama foreign policy team is likely to have, and given the prospect of a joke like Madeline Albright, she's going to be better. Plus, it opens the door for Rudy to take her seat in 2010. Furthermore, we already see him backing off the Iraq pullout plans, and he's said he's going to send MORE troops to Afghanistan.

Clearly, social policy is going to be far left. We'll see if BHO signs the Freedom of "Choice" Act, making on demand abortion the law of the land, as his first act, as he has promised. We'll see if he lifts the ban on federal funding of abortion, and permits the US government to fund abortions overseas. If he shows this group the back of his hand, he may be someone we can deal with on the right.

If he allows union card check laws to be passed, he will be paying off the union lobby, and helping to destroy industries across the country. Also will be interesting to see what he does on the auto industry bailout.

I don't expect BHO to govern as a conservative. None of us should. He won't. Elections have consequences. We lost. If he can get away with it, he could socialize every industry, raise taxes to disastrous rates, and make this a libertine social democracy (barely). That's a recipe for disaster and will make him a one term president. I don't think the guy is stupid.

Now, if you're a Kos-reading Kool-aid drinker, is this guy really about change????

Don't

The Cult of Obama, now marketed

I posted not too long ago about the replacing of Che with Obama in the Left's marketing psyche.

With a h/t to Libertarian Republican, check out this AP news piece, with it's reference to Obama icons as Che-like (gotta watch the first 1:55 or so).

I think Obama probably wants the comparisons between himself and Che, however, to end at the T-shirt design level.

These people are stars

In a linked report from Drudge, we are to believe that these people are "stars" and being considered for Obama's cabinet:

1. John Kerry for State - Ugh! This is the worst. Send this guy to Turkmenistan, please, not DOS. The place is f'd up; enough without this insufferable idiot at the helm.
2. Powell for DoD - Now we know what Powell got promised for his endorsement. I hate to break it to Powell-lovers, but I think this is a boon to Service Chiefs and big war thinkers. Plus, to the Left, what cred does the guy who made the WMD sale to the UN have?
3. Kennedy for UN Ambassador - ok, whatever, she should fit in over there.
4. RF Kennedy for EPA - this is certainly not a moderate choice. This is actually about the worst, an environmental whacko nut job Chavez supporter pounding US corporations for 4 years.
5. Emanuel for COS - as long as his target is Reid/Pelosi, it's ok. Otherwise, a talented partisan hack.

Not shaping up too good so far. Lots of Wahington insiders on this list.

Do not

Barack and Gianna

I can't imagine that anyone on the right has not seen this commercial, but if not, you should see it and understand that Barack Obama isn't interested in any reasonable restrictions on abortion (something we might reasonably expect from a doctrinaire liberal who wants to bring "change" to Washington), and never has been, and likely never will be, and this will flow into his litmus tests on judicial appointees.

The commercial from the group bornalivetruth.org, is posted below:


I heard Gianna on Hannity yesterday and on H&C last night. She's obviously a committed Christian and despite having CP, she is making her life an example of Godliness for all to see.

While Colmes didn't really know how to handle her (inwardly, probably as an object of his scorn, as a failure of Liberal policies), he failed to get her to say that 0bama is for infanticide.

Like many of 0bama's decisions (see post below), despite what may be his best intentions to satisfy his followers (in this case the abortion lobby), this one is another example of failure to see what the consequences of decisions he supports will be, and how heinous they can be.

Whether it's not understanding your support of Senate Bill 99 would allow the teaching of sex education to kindergartners, or whether failure to pass a BIAPA in Illinois means the deaths of abortion survivors, with the approval of the state, I just don't think we can allow this kind of "judgement" in the White House, regardless of how correct he was in opposing the Iraq War from the beginning.

As they say in Georgia, even a blind rat finds the cheese sometimes.

Sex Ed to Kindergartners. Obama says...

The latest McCain attack ad that has the 0 crowd all fired up is about 0bama's 2003 Illinois Senate views on sex education, particularly with respect to Kindergartners and Senate Bill 99.

Byron York in National Review today weighs in that McCain is mostly right on this one, that the practical application of the bill is in teaching sex ed to kindergartners, not just to teach them about inappropriate touching. The list of people who won't speak to York on this issue is telling. What do these people have to fear from the truth? If the truth is as 0bama "remembers."

0bama's support of the bill may have been that he wanted these youngsters warned about the dangers of this touching, but, York, having read the bill, and spoken to at least one of it's sponsors, is clear that the bill was intended to do more than teach about inappropriate touching, and, in fact, that touching was way down on the list of priorities for this bill.

Sen. Iris Martinez, one of the bill's sponsors, was asked by York, "You didn’t see it[the bill] specifically as being about inappropriate touching?" She responded, "Absolutely not."

We are left to conclude one of the following about 0bama:

1. He didn't read the bill and didn't know what it actually said
2. He is an ignoramus
3. He is lying

You take your pick, but I don't like any of these qualities in my presidential choice.

end...

Obama is Jesus?

Wow! The Democrats are completely off their rockers!

In a chorus of talking points, the last couple of days they have seized upon the idea of 0bama as "community organizer" just the same as Jesus.

Rep. Mike Conaway (R-TX) put it best, when he said, "Madam Speaker, I know Jesus Christ; Jesus Christ is a personal friend of mine. Sen. Obama is no Jesus Christ." Here's another good analysis.

I don't know what religion these guys are following, but to compare the Son of God, and Savior of Mankind to a "community organizer" should be something that Christians of all colors, genders, and sexual orientations should find insulting to their intelligence and faith.

To complete their analogy, they liken Pontius Pilate to Governor Sarah Palin, with the talking point that Pilate was also a governor.

Now, I don't know what Democrats suddenly have against governors, but I'd like to ask my democrat friends, how can democrat governors absolve themselves of their sins of governance? Is it enough for someone, as Evan Bayh, former governor of Indiana, has done, to be elected to the legislative branch? Is Senator Bayh now immune from future charges that he is Pilate? Or, does the governor tag stay with him his entire career, and now makes him ineligible for national office (at least for the VP or President's job).

If the democrats really believe this, then I call on ALL democrat governors to immediately resign, so as to protect themselves from becoming Pontius Pilate's. Turn these jobs over to Republicans immediately, since we all know that republicans are evil, nasty people, who want to order the murder of our Lord.

Could this be the hidden reason why 0bama passed over Tim Kaine, the aforementioned Evan Bayh, and Kathleen Sebelius?

end...

My "Neighborly" Tax Plan

0bama speaking to O'Reilly really hit the skids talking about socialism and "neighborliness" and telling the rich they need to give more to waitresses (I didn't realize the rich were such poor tippers!). See the video




I have been pondering this tax idea for a while, but, since 0bama thinks we should be more "neighborly" I want to propose this modification to our tax tables to make them more "neighborly:"

Whatever the tax bracket you're in, take the last 1/3 of the taxes you pay, and, instead of paying them to the Federal Government to redistribute, let the taxpayers themselves decide how to distribute them to charities of their choice.

I suggest the United Way administer this program. That way, in our neighborliness, we could target the final 1/3 of our taxes to organizations that want to receive them, can receive them, and would put them to good use, frequently even in our own "neighborhoods." And, they would get more of the money to people who could use it than the redistributionists in Congress, and we might feel better about sending in our money to be redistributed, if we had some say in it.

And, for those liberals, who feel that the Feds are the best positioned to apportion their money, they can choose the government, instead of the charity(ies) of their choice.

The rich might not feel so bad giving all that extra money that way, since they do it anyway.

Come on, 0bama, don't you think that is pretty darn neighborly?

I even have a name for my bill: "The Mr. Rogers Tax Reform of 2009"

More on pigs and fish

Ok, by now, you've all probably seen the internet ad, "Lipstick" that the McCain/Palin campaign put out in response to Barack 0's Pigs/Lipstick comments on Tuesday.

The media are abuzz over whether Barack intended this as a slam on Palin, and Barack was even crying "Enough" over the uproar. When I first heard this, I thought it wasn't intended as a poke at Palin, and, I don't think he thought it would be perceived that way. However, there were two comparisons made, and only the Pig/Lipstick one is getting the outrage, but the second one was,

"You can wrap an old fish in a piece of paper called change. It's still gonna stink."

These were prepared remarks, Obama didn't just pick these idioms out of thin air (he's not really capable of that in a speech).

He meant the lipstick pig remark to apply to Palin, and he meant the "old fish" remark to apply to John McCain.

So, Obamaniacs, let's be honest here with each other, 0bama has decided to get nasty, by taking gratuitous swipes at the female VP candidate and the Presidential candidate by calling him an "old" guy.

This 0bama is really all about the politics of change, isn't he?

Speaking of earmarks...and pigs...and lipstick...

It didn't get much airplay, but the watchdog group, Citizens Against Government Waste, issued their report on top earmarkers a couple weeks ago. The results:

• Sen. Barack Obama’s (D-Ill.) 2007 rating was 10 percent, making his lifetime score 18 percent. The 2008 Congressional Pig Book contained 53 earmarks worth $97.4 million for Sen. Obama, including $1,648,850 for the Shedd Aquarium.
  
• Sen. Joe Biden (D-Del.) received the worst possible rating in 2007 with 0 percent, while his lifetime rating is 22 percent. According to the Pig Book, Sen. Biden had 70 earmarks for a total of $119.7 million in fiscal year 2008, including $246,100 for the Grand Opera House in Wilmington.
  
• Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) received a score of 100 percent and has a lifetime rating of 88, has never requested nor received a single earmark, and has pledged to veto any spending bill that contains any earmarks. (Sen. McCain was only present for 11 of the 35 Senate votes that CCAGW tallied. Therefore, he was not eligible for the Taxpayer Super Hero Award)

And, in case you missed it, 0bama got $3.4M in earmarks for Joe Biden's lobbyist son's clients.

In this December 2007 article (so, before anyone could accuse her of posturing to be VP), the Seattle Times reports that the Alaska governor's office (that'd be Sarah Palin) was asking for far fewer earmarks to restore Alaska's image. Clearly, Sarah Palin was out ahead on this issue, despite the protestations of the pork-meisters in the Congressional delegation (all Republicans, by the way).

You know, 0bama is right, no matter how much you put lipstick on it, it really is still a pig!

Important Political Message

Watch this commercial, I command you! Pass it along to your friends.

Too bad he didn't vote "Present"

You know, Barack 0bama should think before he speaks.

The latest DNC and 0 campaign talking point is that Sarah Palin was for the "Bridge to Nowhere" before she was against it.

As has been detailed, Palin cancelled the "Bridge" project after Congress released the money to be spent as the state saw fit, vice as "earmarked" (get it?) for the bridge. She did this over the objections of the AK Congressional delegation and it is for that she's lauded - taking on Ted Stevens and the AK pork crew.

Of course, when you're a Senator, as the other three candidates are, you have a record, and in this case, both 0bama and his running mate, Mr. Biden, voted FOR the bridge, twice. They voted for a bunch of other earmarks, as well.

McCain, on the other hand, was voting against the bridge.

So, on one hand, we have a Washington neophyte, schooled in the patronage ways of the Chicago political machine, passing some goodies to his Senate buddies; a lifetime Senator with hairplugs, doing the same, and on the other, we have McCain, opposing it, and Palin, taking her state's money, and spending it, instead of on the bridge, on more meaningful projects.

You tell me who's for change in this picture.