Bill Maher Appears On Conan..What An Idiot

Bill Maher made his first appearance on the Tonight Show with Conan O'Brien.

He invited himself. Apparently, Maher called up and offered to come on the show, not to plug anything, but just to welcome O'Brien to California.

I didn't know Maher was serving as the Welcome Wagon.

I disagree with the notion that he had nothing to plug. Egomaniac Maher asked to be on the show to plug himself. It's also possible that Obama's people wanted Maher on the air to talk up Obama while he frolics on Martha's Vineyard.

There was some chitchat about California v. New York. The supposedly thoughtful Maher claimed to be concerned about how O'Brien was adjusting to his move out to California. It was an awkward exchange.

Eventually, of course, Maher talked politics.

O'Brien brought up Maher's recent "little bit of a controversy," the interview Maher did on CNN with Wolf Blitzer.

(Video and transcript of that interview here.)

Transcript

CONAN O'BRIEN: Some people got upset because you said that America is stupid.

BILL MAHER: Yes.

O'BRIEN: And they got upset.

MAHER: You know who did? The stupid people.

(Cheers and applause)

O'BRIEN: Yes.

MAHER: Not us. Nobody in this room.... Well, I mean, I was answering a specific question. Wolf Blitzer asked me if I thought Sarah Palin could win a presidential election. And I said, 'I think anything's possible in this stupid country.' And yes, some people's heads exploded, and Bill O'Reilly called me a pinhead.

O'BRIEN: He called you a pinhead?

MAHER: Yes, which is A) not true, and B) really funny coming from a doody-face like him.

O'BRIEN: You're right. It is a stupid country.

MAHER: Well, it is. So, I had to... The next week I just had to defend myself because, you know, I like to back up what I say. So, you know, you can look this stuff up. There are polls that they do, and they find out what people in this country are thinking or, in this case, not thinking. And it's really frightening. Like over half the people cannot name one branch of government or tell..., or tell you what the Bill of Rights is.

Um, they're constantly bitching and moaning about how much taxes they are taxed, and spend. They have no idea what the government spends money on. Like they think 24 percent of our budget goes to foreign aid when it's less than 1 percent. Eighteen percent of people think that the sun revolves around the earth. I'm not making this up.

O'BRIEN: Andy just fainted at that one.

...

MAHER: Here's a great one: More than half the people do not get it that Judaism preceded Christianity. That's half the people look at books called the New Testament and the Old Testament and cannot figure out which came first.

I hate to be the bad guy, but it is, you know... A third of Republicans think Obama was not born in this country.

O'BRIEN: That's... They have a name.

MAHER: The birthers.

O'BRIEN: The birthers. Yeah.

MAHER: Yes. I mean that's a good example of.... Any birthers here? I don't want to get shot.

(Very little applause)

MAHER: But, yeah, these are, you know, will not accept that he was born in Hawaii, but I read this week 10 percent of people don't know Hawaii is a state.

O'BRIEN: Really?

MAHER: Yeah, but uh, there's nothing you can do. I mean, they have shown his birth certificate. I mean, but they cannot be convinced. You could go up to these birther people with the original birth certificate, personally deliver it with the placenta...

O'BRIEN: Don't do that.

MAHER: You could have a video of Obama emerging from the womb with Don Ho singing in the background. Jack Lord could be filming...

O'BRIEN: Sure, I hope so.

MAHER: ...Hawaii 5-0 behind the birth and they would not believe it. So, you know, I make a bargain with these people: I will show you Obama's birth certificate if you show me Sarah Palin's high school diploma. How 'bout that?

(Applause)

O'BRIEN: That's fair.

COMMERCIAL BREAK

I think it's funny that Maher depicts conservatives as stupid people.

Remember the poll that John Zogby did for John Ziegler. Obama voters were found to be less than intelligent, informed people. Read more here.

Stupid people elected Obama.

Stupidity is nonpartisan, but that wouldn't fit Maher's template.

Another thing--

Why focus on the birthers?

Maher could have mentioned the stupidity of the 9/11 truthers, as he's done in the past.


O'BRIEN: You have said, and you may have a point here, that you think that President Obama, uh, in how many day has he been in office now? They were counting for a while. It's his ninth day. It's his 100th day. And I don't know what it is now -- it's 140 days, 120 days in office -- that he's overexposed. Do you think our president is overexposed?

MAHER: Well, he is. I mean, at some point, 'Change we can believe in' became, you know, 'Tyler Perry meets the Obamas,' which is fine. I like him. I mean, let's put this in perspective. I'm glad he is the president. You know, I mean, it's a big difference from what we had, just grammatically, you know.

(Applause)

MAHER: When the president speaks, English teachers don't cry now. But, yeah, there is a fine line between transparency, which we did not have with the previous administration, and being overexposed.

I mean, I get it. He likes to be on TV. I like my bong. I take it out of my mouth every once in a while.

(Applause)

Obama has had more than his share of verbal gaffes. The man is lost without his teleprompter.

Have we ever had a president speak more slowly and say "uh" more often than Obama?

Do English teachers cry when they hear the president say, "all wee-weed up"?


MAHER: And, uh, you know, I mean, the point I was trying to make when a president cares that much about his popularity, I don't think it's a good thing. I don't want my president to be primarily a TV star who's worried about his ratings.

I think right now, for example, this health care debate looks like it's... we could lose it because I don't think he has been tough enough. This, you know, he used to say in the campaign, 'It's your time.' This is his time. He should get mad. Stop dicking around. Can you say that here?

O'BRIEN: None of this will air. They're gonna show a Leave it to Beaver.

MAHER: Right. Well, that's dirtier than my...

O'BRIEN: Hey, hey, hey, hey, hey, hey!

(Applause)

O'BRIEN: We can do better.

MAHER: That's my 'Welcome to California beaver' joke.

O'BRIEN: Thank you very much. We didn't get enough of those in New York. I appreciate it.

I thought Maher was a libertarian.

Has he converted?

Certainly, a true libertarian wouldn't want a massive government bureaucracy controlling health care.


MAHER: Right, right. Uh, but, yeah, I mean, you know, they're talking about 60 votes they need. Forget this stuff, 60.... You can't get Americans to agree on anything 60 percent. Sixty percent of people don't believe in evolution in this country.

He just needs to drag them to it. Like I just said, they're stupid. Just drag them to this. Get health care done, you know, with or without them. Make the Gang of Six an offer they can't refuse. This Max Baucus guy? He needs to wake up tomorrow with an intern's head in his bed.

(Some laughter)

O'BRIEN: Good Lord.

What a horrific thing to say!

Talk about inciting violence!

I get The Godfather reference, but what does that suggest?

That the White House should use mafia tactics?

Rahm Emanuel is the Enforcer. He does send people dead fish.


MAHER: I'm serious. You know, this is where, I said this months ago and people criticized me, this is where the president needs to be a little more like Bush. Bush had horrible ideas -- torture, deregulation, massive tax cuts for the rich, preemptive war -- horrible ideas.

But you know what? He had that swagger that said, 'I'm just gonna get it through. Suck on it, America, if you don't like it.'

O'BRIEN: So, you think Obama needs to get to that level of toughness.

MAHER: He needs to marry his good ideas with that kind of attitude.

They asked Dick Cheney once, 'Most of Americans are against the Iraq war.' Do you remember what he said? 'So?'

In other words, 'We got elected. You have your opinions. Fine. That's what Twitter is for. But, I'm gonna do what I have to do.'

And that's what Obama should do. He should wake up tomorrow and say, 'Jesus told me to fix health care.' I'm certain about it. Seriously.

(Applause and laughter)


Funny that Maher mocks President Bush's faith.

Just last week, Obama said, "We are God's partners in matters of life and death."

I think that translates to "Jesus told me to fix health care."


O'BRIEN: Well, he does. It's one thing to say that he needs to get tough, but we have a two party system. He needs those votes. He has to convince....

MAHER: He doesn't need those votes. That's the point. He does not need those votes. They have 60 votes. They only need 51.

That's right. The Republicans aren't blocking anything. This is the Dems' baby. Reconciliation.


O'BRIEN: But there is something to be said probably for making in a two party system...

MAHER: He has tried. We do not have a two party system.

O'BRIEN: Right.

MAHER: We have two parties, but we don't have the right two parties. We have one party that is a good party if you're defending banks, credit card companies, big agriculture, pharmaceutical lobby. That would be the Democrats. And then on the other side, we have a fringe party of religious lunatics, flat-earthers, and Civil War reenactors who call themselves...

(Applause)

MAHER: They call themselves the Republicans, and they take their orders from Rush Limbaugh. And they think Obama is a socialist. Socialist? He's not even a liberal. What we need is a progressive party in this country. We don't have it.

(Applause)

...

Could Maher be more offensive? "Fringe party of religious lunatics, flat-earthers, and Civil War reenactors."

Maher is operating under an entirely different set of definitions if he thinks that Obama isn't a liberal.

Obama thinks of himself as a liberal.

Good grief.


O'BRIEN: Yeah, I think a lot of the great social change though in this country, just me personally, has come through some element of compromise, and it's too bad that we... I don't think we can do that. That's all.

MAHER: But that's what he's been trying, compromise. And they don't want to compromise. See, they only win when health care loses. That's how this...

O'BRIEN: Is your prediction then that health care will not pass. Is that what you're saying?

MAHER: I don't know. I just hope that he doesn't sign anything that says 'health care reform,' you know, if it's not actual health care reform.

Again, I thought Maher was a libertarian. Apparently, he's abandoned that.

Maher's segment ended with him complaining about the government subsidizing "bad things."


MAHER: Please, you're in California now. Let me show you how to eat.

O'BRIEN: What is that?

MAHER: Well, I'm just saying I wouldn't eat a hot dog if you put a condom on it.

O'BRIEN: Neither would I!

That was the only time I laughed during Maher's appearance, and it was at something O'Brien said.

O'Brien seemed rather uncomfortable during much of the interview.



It was like he didn't want to agree with Maher even when he did.

Maher's extremism seemed to make him nervous. O'Brien didn't say much. He kept sipping from his mug. It was as if O'Brien was searching for a joke to interject and lighten things up, but instead he just ended up listening as Maher did his "America is stupid" shtick.

It wasn't entertaining.

Obama, The Pope and Townsend

According to Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, Obama better represents Catholics than the Pope.Wacky?Absolutely. Surprising?Not at all.Many Catholic Democrats, as well as Catholics with other or no political affiliations, routinely ignore Catholic doctrine. For Newsweek, Kennedy Townsend writes:
Pope Benedict XVI and President Barack Obama meet for the first time, an affair much anticipated and in some circles frowned upon by American Catholics in the wake of Obama's controversial Notre Dame commencement speech in May. Conservatives in the church denounced Obama's appearance as a nod by the premier Catholic university to a conciliatory politics that heralds the start of a slippery moral slope.In truth, though, Obama's pragmatic approach to divisive policy (his notion that we should acknowledge the good faith underlying opposing viewpoints) and his social-justice agenda reflect the views of American Catholic laity much more closely than those vocal bishops and pro-life activists. When Obama meets the pope tomorrow, they'll politely disagree about reproductive freedoms and homosexuality, but Catholics back home won't care, because they know Obama's on their side. In fact, Obama's agenda is closer to their views than even the pope's.WHAT?"Catholics back home won't care, because they know Obama's on their side."That's a problem. Kennedy Townsend concludes with this incredible statement:
The pope has a lot to learn about Catholic politics in America. Barack Obama can teach him."Catholic politics in America" isn't the concern of the Pope. The Holy Father is the spiritual leader of the Catholic Church, over a billion Catholics. Obama sat in the pews of Jeremiah Wright's church for twenty years. He joined Wright's church and abandoned it out of political expediency. Obama is hardly a man worthy of representing Catholics on matters of faith.And yet we're supposed to buy that Obama better represents American Catholics?It all depends what the meaning of "better represents" is.I think it's accurate to say that Obama better represents the views of lapsed Catholics. I think Obama is the one who has a lot to learn. Pope Benedict can teach him.

Obama's Credit Card Plan

The imperial president Obama was inaugurated four months ago.

The question: Am I better off today than I was four months ago?

NO!

Another question: Is there any hope that I will be better off a year from now than I am today?

HELL NO!

On Tuesday, Andrew Martin, the New York Times, warned that Obama's credit card plan would punish responsible card users.

Credit cards have long been a very good deal for people who pay their bills on time and in full. Even as card companies imposed punitive fees and penalties on those late with their payments, the best customers racked up cash-back rewards, frequent-flier miles and other perks in recent years.

Now Congress is moving to limit the penalties on riskier borrowers, who have become a prime source of billions of dollars in fee revenue for the industry. And to make up for lost income, the card companies are going after those people with sterling credit.

Banks are expected to look at reviving annual fees, curtailing cash-back and other rewards programs and charging interest immediately on a purchase instead of allowing a grace period of weeks, according to bank officials and trade groups.

“It will be a different business,” said Edward L. Yingling, the chief executive of the American Bankers Association, which has been lobbying Congress for more lenient legislation on behalf of the nation’s biggest banks. “Those that manage their credit well will in some degree subsidize those that have credit problems.”

Whether it's mortgages or credit cards or whatever, I'm sick of being PUNISHED for being responsible and having my act together.

I believe in being charitable. My household is not stingy with donations. Our total dramatically exceeds what Joe Biden and his wife give to charity, and what the Obamas gave before they had their eyes on the White House.

When it comes to spreading our wealth around, I want control. I don't want the government to determine my charitable giving.

But here we go again.

I have to bail out people that are irresponsible and living beyond their means.

I'm getting screwed.

...People who routinely pay off their credit card balances have been enjoying the equivalent of a free ride, he said, because many have not had to pay an annual fee even as they collect points for air travel and other perks.

“Despite all the terrible things that have been said, you’re making out like a bandit,” he said. “That’s a third of credit card customers, 50 million people who have gotten a great deal.”

Robert Hammer, an industry consultant, said the legislation might have the broad effect of encouraging card issuers to become ever more reliant on fees from marginal customers as well as creditworthy cardholders — “deadbeats” in industry parlance, because they generate scant fee revenue.

“They aren’t charities. They have shareholders to report to,” he said, referring to banks and credit card companies. “Whatever is left in the model to work from, they will start to maneuver.”

I played by the rules, yet I'm going to be punished.

I have to pay because other people don't have the self-control and discipline to manage their spending.

I'm sick of being tapped to clean up others' messes. I'm sick of the Obama government planning ways to seize more and more of my money, taking away my freedoms, and generally messing with my life.

Today, Ron Lieber, the New York Times, is putting a happy face on the Obama plan to screw me.

At first glance, the sweeping credit card legislation that passed the Senate on Tuesday looks like a huge victory for consumers. The bill, after all, contains relief from penalty fees and certain interest rate spikes.

But for people who pay off their bills each month, and milk the card rewards programs for everything they’re worth, there is some cause for concern.

For months now, the card companies have been threatening to cut rewards programs sharply to make up for revenue lost because of the new restrictions.

My guess, however, is that this talk is just so much saber-rattling.

Card companies want to make money, and big spenders help them do it, even if those cardholders do not go into debt.

First, let’s lay out the things we know will change because of the new legislation. The bill is chock-full of new rules, which will take effect at various points in the year after President Obama signs the final legislation.

Lieber discusses eight of the changed rules, ones that don't really impact responsible card users.

Then, he delivers the good news!

...So will credit card companies kill reward programs or drastically scale most of them back? Of course not.

“If you strip away the reward component of a credit card, it’s essentially a commodity,” said Rick Ferguson, editorial director at the loyalty marketing company LoyaltyOne. “The reward is what gives it its personality. It works from a branding perspective as well as a mechanism to influence customer behavior and consolidate spending on a particular card.”

That last part is crucial. People who spend a ton generate fees galore from merchants, and that money helps the card company stay in business. So you may soon see card companies giving away more goodies or lowering annual fees for people who hit certain spending thresholds each year. American Express already does this on a number of cards.

The NYT has done an about-face. Only the day before, Martin spread the doom and gloom message.

Now, Lieber is spreading the word that responsible card users WILL NOT have to carry the burden of those who made irresponsible choices with their credit cards.

In fact, people like me "may see card companies giving away more goodies."

This has the scent of pure propaganda.

Lieber concludes his column with another turnaround.

Also, keep in mind that you may have more control over what the card companies do to you than you may think.

If you don’t like the new fees and other things that banks will soon be testing as they grapple with their new economic reality, then make some noise. Send a note to me at rlieber@nytimes.com, so I can write about the latest foolishness — or consumer-friendly twist. At the very least, all of our complaints to the higher-ups at the banks may help persuade the companies to head in another direction.

“Work your way up the chain,” said Dennis C. Moroney, research director for bank cards at TowerGroup, a MasterCard-owned financial services consultant. After all, it may cost less to appease you than it would to replace you.

All of a sudden, Lieber talks about "new fees and other things that banks will soon be testing." Huh?

Everything was rosy. Don't worry, be happy. Then, POW. He does a 180, back to reality. Forget Lieber's heavy duty sugarcoating.

He wants aggravated people to send him their complaints so he can try to persuade the credit card "companies to head in another direction." Sure.

Send in those complaints to Lieber. That will help.

The fact is, once again, responsible people will have to bail out the irresponsible. We will be punished because we did the right thing. We will have to carry the irresponsible on our backs.

Here's a thought: Why not hold the irresponsible responsible for their own choices?

I use credit cards as a convenience. If it costs me, I'll stop using the cards if necessary.

Kiss this customer goodbye.

The solution on the credit card matter is simple for me, but it's still disturbing to have the out of control Dems and imperial president Obama screwing up my life.

Garofalo Confronted

When Janeane Garofalo appeared on MSNBC's Countdown with Keith Olbermann, April 16, 2009, she disparaged thousands and thousands of Americans that participated in the Tea Party protests.Olbermann lapped up her every word.
JANEANE GAROFALO: You know, there's nothing more interesting than seeing a bunch of racists become confused and angry at a speech they're not quite certain what he's saying. It sounds right and then it doesn't make sense. Which, let's be very honest about what this is about. It's not about bashing Democrats, it's not about taxes, they have no idea what the Boston tea party was about, they don't know their history at all. This is about hating a black man in the White House. This is racism straight up. That is nothing but a bunch of teabagging rednecks.Garofalo stands by her remarks from nearly a month ago. She will make no apologies. According to her, the Tea Party protests had nothing to do with taxes. They were gatherings of racists angry over the fact that Obama, a black man, is the president. Video.From the Boston Globe:
Janeane Garofalo doesn't hold back -- whether she's onstage describing a night of binge eating or on national TV calling the conservatives who attended last month's Tea Party rallies racists. Saturday night at the Alternative Comedy Festival in Somerville, the subject was her neuroses, and she left no obsession unturned.She came out running, wearing shorts, black tights, and a pair of red Puma boots, and climbed straight into the audience. It was rumored that the Tea Party people were planning to protest the show, and she addressed the possibility right away - "If there's any teabaggers here, welcome, and as always, white power" - but there was no sign of them.Because she's so outspoken, Garofalo comes off as fearless, yet she's anything but. In fact, she claimed she was so nervous about the protesters that she took a pair of scissors to her hair before the show.Talking about neuroses can be funny. Woody Allen was a master at that. But when Garofalo tries her hand at that sort of humor, it's more pathetic than entertaining. She says, "At least I have the decency to hate myself."Kind of creepy. Garofalo is desperate for attention. She wanted protesters to storm her show. But alas, there were none. When Garofalo says she cut off chunks of her hair out of nervousness about these protesters, I wonder if she was nervous they would show up or they wouldn't show up. It's hard to say. Maybe she doesn't know. She seems to be very unhappy and confused. Poor Garofalo. She was stood up. She tried to get a reaction but she was jilted by the Tea Party protesters. They don't care about her. She hacked off her hair for nothing. I think there's a good chance that she started the rumors, or at least played them up, to hype her show and to appear relevant.Sad.

Eugene Kane And Tea Parties

Eugene Kane is jumping on the Left's bandwagon, joining others trying to discredit the Tea Party Movement.

Kane is following Paul Krugman's lead. Yesterday, Krugman wrote a lame piece mocking Republicans and the demonstrations set for April 15, Tax Day.

Like Krugman, Kane makes some outlandish assertions.

I'm not sure if Krugman, Kane, and their ilk really don't get the Tea Party Movement and they fear what they don't understand, or if they really do get it and therefore fear it.

In either case, they're afraid.

Kane writes:

Wednesday is Tax Day. It's also Tea Party Day for some Americans who want to send a loud message about President Barack Obama's economic recovery plans.

If you plan to attend a tea party, you probably watch Fox News a lot. If you haven't heard about the tea party movement, that probably means you prefer other sources for your information.

The Left really loathes FOX News.

It's a myth that FOX is behind the Tea Parties, one that Krugman promoted, too.

It's a talking point. Everybody says this is FOX at work, unfair and unbalanced. Blah, blah, blah.

Has Kane actually talked to people planning on attending an event? Does he have a clue about them, their thoughts, their motivations?

It's ridiculous for Kane to state, "If you haven't heard about the tea party movement, that probably means you prefer other sources for your information."

Obviously, lib media are railing about the Tea Party Movement. Paul Krugman is a New York Times columnist. If you prefer sources other than FOX for news, you certainly have heard about it. The libs are obsessed with it and the "teabaggers," the derogatory name the libs have adopted for participants.

Really, Eugene, that was a silly thing to say.

Most of us learned about the original Boston Tea Party in elementary school. That's where we first heard about the scrappy patriots in 1773 who decided to make their displeasure known against a British parliament that was taking financial advantage of the American colonies.

The rallying call then was "No taxation without representation!" - and it led to the birth of a great nation. As best as I can figure, this new tea party movement has almost nothing to do with any of that save for the name.

How goofy!

Tea Parties that have already taken place and those scheduled for Wednesday don't claim to be replicating the original Boston Tea Party.

The tea party protest - some call it a tax revolt - reportedly has its roots in an on-air rant by a financial news anchor that spread when conservative bloggers grabbed hold of the idea and spread it widely on the Internet. Much of the anger is aimed at Obama and Congress for passing a multibillion-dollar economic recovery plan.

That financial news anchor's name is Rick Santelli. He's on CNBC. Kane doesn't mention that information.

Is that out of laziness?

Kane may want his readers to think this unnamed anchor works at FOX.

Here's where it all began.



Seeing as how most of Obama's plan has not been in place long enough to judge its effectiveness, it seems strange to revolt before knowing whether it will work. But sometimes all you need is a catchy idea to get folks excited.

Being taxed up the wazoo, being horrified at this unprecedented power grab by Obama, and being aghast at his assault on the private sector are the issues.

This isn't about judging effectiveness. The end doesn't justify the means when you're talking about dismantling the foundation of our way of life.

Organizers say there will be tea parties Wednesday at more than 250 locations nationwide, including Madison. The tea parties will be political rallies led by folks such as Newt Gingrich and other Republican leaders but will also feature polarizing media figures such as Sean Hannity. If you recall the images from rallies for Sarah Palin last year, I predict that's what these tea parties will look and sound like, particularly whenever someone mentions Obama's name.

Columnist Paul Krugman of The New York Times believes the tea parties are less of a spontaneous outpouring of public sentiment than a campaign orchestrated by the usual suspects. In his column Monday, Krugman, a Nobel Prize-winning economist, essentially dismissed the entire thing as a silly response by Republicans feeling shut out of any substantive policy discussions on the economy.

Kane, like Krugman, is playing on the unpopularity of certain conservative figures to fire up the Left.

Kane tries to show a tinge of originality by citing Gingrich and Hannity instead of Karl Rove and Rush Limbaugh, as Krugman did. But the Saul Alinsky Rules for Radicals technique is the same: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. It's the same page out of the same radical playbook.

If predictions are true and thousands show up for tea parties in places such as Madison and Washington, D.C., that will be a hard story to ignore. I would never dismiss a movement just because it was nurtured out of earshot of the mainstream media. I remember attending the first Million Man March in 1995 in Washington. Most national TV networks and newspapers ignored the march until it became apparent the event had captured the imagination of hundreds of thousands of black men - and women - who traveled to the nation's capital in a peaceful demonstration of pride.

For a while there, I thought Kane was actually going to write a column without using a racial component.

What was I thinking?

I wonder if he's contractually obligated to do that.

The current tea party movement doesn't seem designed to do much except demonstrate that there are still lots of people who don't like Obama's plans for the economy but don't really have any alternative. There's no tea to throw into the harbor this time, just a lot of leftover bile.

The original patriots, I suspect, would want nothing to do with that.

"Leftover bile"?

Give me a break!

The Leftists are still mocking Dan Quayle's spelling.

Leftists seem to attack President Bush and Vice President Cheney nearly as often and with as much pure hate as when they were in office. That bile will be flowing for the next fifty years.

My take on the original patriots differs quite dramatically from Kane's view.

The original patriots, I suspect, would want nothing to do with citizens being enslaved by dependency on a massive federal government.

The original patriots, I suspect, would want nothing to do with a government seizing control of private businesses, property, and earnings.

The original patriots, I suspect, would want nothing to do with power grabbing politicians seeking to solidify their own fortunes at the expense of the people they've been elected to serve.

The original patriots, I suspect, would want nothing to do with that which infringes on the liberty of individuals to control their own destinies, free of government intervention.

Obama On Nukes

Barack Obama says he's not naïve.

He's wrong.

If he truly believes that it's possible to have a world without nuclear weapons, he's extremely naïve.

From Newsweek:

Speaking just hours after North Korea launched what the U.S. and others believe was a test of its long-range missile capabilities, President Obama called for an international effort toward nuclear disarmament, calling nukes the “most dangerous legacy of the Cold War.”

What timing!

Apparently, Obama didn't realize how bizarre his remarks would sound given North Korea's actions. It's like he's in a bubble, buying into the myth that he's a savior. If you think you can walk on water, I guess you think you can ban nukes.

Obama said that America, as the only nuclear power to have actually used a nuclear weapon, had a “moral responsibility to act” and would “immediately and aggressively” seek, among other things, the long-stalled ratification of a comprehensive ban on such weapons. “I’m not naïve. This goal will not be reached quickly—perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence,” Obama said, liking it to Prague's long, but eventual rise above communism. “(We) must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change.” Invoking a familiar line from his presidential campaign, Obama said the world had to insist, “Yes, we can.”

There he goes again, talking like a "blame America," radical Leftist. (He talks that way because that's what he is.)

We all know the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon is the United States. We all know why, or we all should know why.

By highlighting that WE are "the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon," and then adding that as a result of the U.S. dropping the bombs that ended World War II WE have a moral responsibility to act to ban nuclear weapons, Obama is once again depicting America as a nation in love with war and bullying other countries. WE must repent for the sins of our past. More than any other country, WE must repent.

Instead of apologizing for the U.S. bombing Hiroshima and Nagasaki, he should be highlighting how much blood and treasure America gave to free Europe and literally save the world. Obama doesn't do that.

I've never heard him make clear reference to the sacrifices our country has made in the name of human rights and freeing people from the oppression of dictators and tyrants and maniacs, especially during the past eight years.

Obama seems to like his role as global citizen, savior of humanity. If anyone is looking for someone to thank for their freedom, chances are they should be thanking members of the American Armed Forces. They were and continue to be the true saviors of millions and millions of the oppressed and suffering, and the guardians of freedom.

The speech, delivered in an old square outside Prague Castle, attracted more than 20,000 people and, on day five, was the first major speech of Obama’s week-long trip to Europe. But it remains unclear if the speech will be regarded as incredibly timely or overshadowed by North Korea’s launch. Although aides said North Korea had always been mentioned in the speech, speechwriters tweaked some paragraphs after word of North Korea's controversial launch."Rules must be minded. Violations must be punished. Words must mean something," Obama said, calling the launch a "provocative" act that violated UN Security Council resolutions."The world must stand together to stop the spread of these weapons."

This is where Obama's naïveté really becomes clear, and rather frightening.

Obama is right when he says that "words must mean something."

The problem is his words don't.

What does he mean by "[t]he world must stand together to stop the spread of these weapons"?

Stand together in what way?

Holding hands? Singing "Kumbaya"?

If he thinks that North Korea is suddenly going to do what he tells it to do, then Obama is really nuts. He's worse than naïve. He's delusional.

I wish we didn't live under the threat of a nuclear attack, but we do.

We could never ban nuclear weapons without seriously jeopardizing our nation's security.

Obama doesn't seem to understand that there are and always will be enemies of freedom.

There are nutjobs like Mahmoud Ahmadinejad and Kim Jong-il and Hugo Chavez and Osama bin Laden. And there will be others following in their footsteps. They don't want peace and they don't want democracy.

We can't disarm. That's sad, but that's reality.

Regarding a ban on nukes: OBAMA, NO WE CAN'T.
_____________________

Transcript excerpt, Obama's remarks
Hradcany Square
Prague, Czech Republic
10:21 A.M. (Local)

Now, one of those issues that I'll focus on today is fundamental to the security of our nations and to the peace of the world -– that's the future of nuclear weapons in the 21st century. The existence of thousands of nuclear weapons is the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War. No nuclear war was fought between the United States and the Soviet Union, but generations lived with the knowledge that their world could be erased in a single flash of light. Cities like Prague that existed for centuries, that embodied the beauty and the talent of so much of humanity, would have ceased to exist.

There was no nuclear war between the U.S. and the USSR because of the deterrence of mutual assured destruction.

It was our military strength, not weakness, that defeated the USSR and won the Cold War. That's right. We won.

Today, the Cold War has disappeared but thousands of those weapons have not. In a strange turn of history, the threat of global nuclear war has gone down, but the risk of a nuclear attack has gone up. More nations have acquired these weapons. Testing has continued. Black market trade in nuclear secrets and nuclear materials abound. The technology to build a bomb has spread. Terrorists are determined to buy, build or steal one. Our efforts to contain these dangers are centered on a global non-proliferation regime, but as more people and nations break the rules, we could reach the point where the center cannot hold.

Obama lays out some good arguments for the necessity of maintaining a nuclear arsenal. If nuclear weapons are banned, only terrorists and thug nations will have nuclear weapons.

Not good.

Now, understand, this matters to people everywhere. One nuclear weapon exploded in one city -– be it New York or Moscow, Islamabad or Mumbai, Tokyo or Tel Aviv, Paris or Prague –- could kill hundreds of thousands of people. And no matter where it happens, there is no end to what the consequences might be -– for our global safety, our security, our society, our economy, to our ultimate survival.

Some argue that the spread of these weapons cannot be stopped, cannot be checked -– that we are destined to live in a world where more nations and more people possess the ultimate tools of destruction. Such fatalism is a deadly adversary, for if we believe that the spread of nuclear weapons is inevitable, then in some way we are admitting to ourselves that the use of nuclear weapons is inevitable. Just as we stood for freedom in the 20th century, we must stand together for the right of people everywhere to live free from fear in the 21st century. (Applause.) And as nuclear power –- as a nuclear power, as the only nuclear power to have used a nuclear weapon, the United States has a moral responsibility to act. We cannot succeed in this endeavor alone, but we can lead it, we can start it.

The U.S. has a moral responsibility to protect the innocent and defend freedom.

So today, I state clearly and with conviction America's commitment to seek the peace and security of a world without nuclear weapons. (Applause.) I'm not naive. This goal will not be reached quickly –- perhaps not in my lifetime. It will take patience and persistence. But now we, too, must ignore the voices who tell us that the world cannot change. We have to insist, "Yes, we can." (Applause.)

Yes, Obama, you are naïve.

Evil exists as surely as nuclear technology does. Neither will disappear.

We must work for peace, but we can't be naïve and act recklessly, endangering ourselves.

Now, let me describe to you the trajectory we need to be on. First, the United States will take concrete steps towards a world without nuclear weapons. To put an end to Cold War thinking, we will reduce the role of nuclear weapons in our national security strategy, and urge others to do the same. Make no mistake: As long as these weapons exist, the United States will maintain a safe, secure and effective arsenal to deter any adversary, and guarantee that defense to our allies –- including the Czech Republic. But we will begin the work of reducing our arsenal.

To reduce our warheads and stockpiles, we will negotiate a new Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty with the Russians this year. (Applause.) President Medvedev and I began this process in London, and will seek a new agreement by the end of this year that is legally binding and sufficiently bold. And this will set the stage for further cuts, and we will seek to include all nuclear weapons states in this endeavor.

To achieve a global ban on nuclear testing, my administration will immediately and aggressively pursue U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty. (Applause.) After more than five decades of talks, it is time for the testing of nuclear weapons to finally be banned. And to cut off the building blocks needed for a bomb, the United States will seek a new treaty that verifiably ends the production of fissile materials intended for use in state nuclear weapons. If we are serious about stopping the spread of these weapons, then we should put an end to the dedicated production of weapons-grade materials that create them. That's the first step.

Second, together we will strengthen the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty as a basis for cooperation. The basic bargain is sound: Countries with nuclear weapons will move towards disarmament, countries without nuclear weapons will not acquire them, and all countries can access peaceful nuclear energy. To strengthen the treaty, we should embrace several principles. We need more resources and authority to strengthen international inspections. We need real and immediate consequences for countries caught breaking the rules or trying to leave the treaty without cause.

What are the "real and immediate consequences for countries caught breaking the rules"?

A speech chastising them?

Obama offers no specifics. In this case, those specifics are critical. But hey, why screw up a lofty sounding speech with messy details?

And we should build a new framework for civil nuclear cooperation, including an international fuel bank, so that countries can access peaceful power without increasing the risks of proliferation. That must be the right of every nation that renounces nuclear weapons, especially developing countries embarking on peaceful programs. And no approach will succeed if it's based on the denial of rights to nations that play by the rules. We must harness the power of nuclear energy on behalf of our efforts to combat climate change, and to advance peace opportunity for all people.

An "international fuel bank"?

Good grief. Who would run the international fuel bank? Kofi Annan?

So naïve.

The Dumbama's Meet The Queen

Congratulations, Mr. Obama. You didn't nod off during your meetings with leaders of the world. It makes me feel so confident to have you representing our country. You managed to stay awake. Good for you!From the New York Daily News:
Both Obamas played the palace Wednesday, but the star who emerged from their first meeting with Queen Elizabeth was the one dubbed Mighty Michelle by the gaga British tabs.First Lady Michelle Obama was regally cool, and really tall at 6 feet in low heels next to the 5-foot-4 queen in the living quarters of Buckingham Palace. President Obama, characteristically cool, seemed a tad self-conscious in the royal presence. Michelle Obama skipped the optional curtsy and easily reached out to shake hands with the queen and Prince Philip, while her husband's head bobbed awkwardly during the introductions. The President, who was fighting off a cold, then appeared to settle on an exaggerated nod in the queen's direction to serve as the optional bow. It was all in the preparation, President Obama said earlier. "I'm very much looking forward to meeting" the queen, Obama said, "and as you might imagine, Michelle has been really thinking that through." ...The chitchat at the palace between the First Couple and the royal couple predictably went downhill when Philip chimed in with one of his trademark off-key bloopers. Elizabeth asked about the Obamas' breakfast and worried that her guests might be tired - "the time lag," the queen said. "You're just trying to stay awake," said Philip. "He's been busy with meetings," Michelle Obama said, and the President added that "I had breakfast with the Prime Minister, I had meetings with the Chinese, the Russians, [Tory leader] David Cameron. And I'm proud to say I did not nod off in one of the meetings." Philip then asked, "Can you tell the difference between [the countries' leaders]?" The Obamas were too polite, or too puzzled, to respond.I don't think Philip's question was a blooper.I'm wondering the same thing. Embedded video from CNN VideoNow, about Michelle Obama's royal faux pas... She threw out protocol and touched the Queen. She also wore a sleeveless dress, a no-no. Embedded video from CNN VideoSupposedly, Michelle Obama brushed up on "Etiquette Fit For a Queen."
Michelle and the president will try to charm the Queen today -- but they better not give her Royal Highness a fist bump.The first lady was briefed on the particulars of royal etiquette by state department and White House officials on board Air Force One yesterday ahead of the big meeting with Queen Elizabeth at Buckingham Palace today, the Daily News reported.Michelle reportedly passed on tips like appropriate small talk and other do's and don'ts to her husband, the paper reported. British etiquette says "you may not shake the queen's hand, only touch it briefly" and that if the Queen stops eating then everyone else must stop too, the News reported.Did Michelle forget the "particulars of royal etiquette," or did she intentionally reject them?Who knows? It's not as if Michelle's behavior is the stuff of an international incident. I don't think this is the start of the crisis that Joe Biden warned would occur. No need to gird your loins over this. It's all good. I do think it's worth remembering how gracefully and perfectly Mrs. Laura Bush conducted herself when the Queen visited the U.S. in 2007. She was such a wonderful first lady.

Obama's Deficit

Hey, big spender!

Barack Obama seems to be operating under the illusion that Americans are completely clueless.

I'm surprised the brilliant, Lincolnesque Obama doesn't understand that "you can fool some of the people all the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you cannot fool all of the people all the time."

From the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel:


A week after signing an almost $800 billion stimulus bill that will make a huge deficit even bigger, President Barack Obama vowed to reverse the nation's fiscal course by the end of his term, saying, "We cannot and will not sustain deficits like these without end."

Presiding over an unusual White House conference on the government's financial outlook, Obama promised a more truthful budgeting process, saying it has been "an exercise in deception" in the past.

The bipartisan meeting, with Obama fielding questions from both liberal and conservative lawmakers, was another effort by the president to strike a collegial tone amid substantive differences between the parties.

It was also part of Obama's attempt to juggle two different goals early in his presidency: the short-term effort to jump-start the economy with massive spending and deficits, and the long-term goal to shrink those deficits and control government costs.

Obama argued Monday that there is no contradiction between the two, saying that without the spending surge in the stimulus, the economy would take longer to recover, tax revenues would go down "and long-term deficit and debt projections would be even higher."

Obama is a real piece of work.

He complains about the huge deficit that he inherited from the Bush administration while he himself is adding trillions of dollars to the deficit.

But he justifies this most massive spending spree in U.S. history with the lame argument that increasing the deficit is a good thing and necessary because that will keep it from growing higher.

Obama wants to calm Americans with his promise to dramatically cut the deficit, vowing fiscal responsibility. Some, the blind, will buy what he's selling. Some will see this for what it is -- crap.

Obama's Deficit Goals Count on Rosy Assumptions


President Obama's ambitious goal of cutting the federal deficit in half relies on a perfect -- some might say improbable -- convergence of factors: a recovered economy, a tax boost for the rich and success in easing foreign entanglements.

In calling for a deficit of about $530 billion in four years, Obama has established a marker by which to measure his first-term performance as president. The dollar figure could be his albatross or his badge of success.

"This will not be easy," Obama said Monday as he kicked off a fiscal summit at the White House. "It will require us to make difficult decisions and face challenges we've long neglected."

Obama's fiscal summit is a joke, coming on the heels of the passage of the bloated, porked up, so-called stimulus bill. Does anyone really believe that Obama is going to curb the spending binge?

The Democrats aren't going to grow the economy. They are growing the government. That's the plan.


...For him to succeed, the economy will have to meet current forecasts that it will begin to turn around gradually during the second half of the year. Even so, Obama might still have to seek billions more to help rescue the beleaguered financial sector.

Administration officials say Obama will also achieve budget reductions through lower spending on the war in Iraq. However, it is unclear how much of those savings he will then devote to Afghanistan, where he already has agreed to boost troop strength.

Further budget assistance would come from increases in taxes for wealthier Americans.

Administration officials have said Obama will meet his campaign pledge to end President George W. Bush's tax cuts for people who make more than $250,000. Those tax cuts are to expire at the end of 2010.

What a mess!

If Obama is truly looking at the long-term big picture, he wouldn't be discouraging economic growth by raising taxes and intruding more and more on the private sector.

Cutting the deficit while embarking on a Spend-o-rama of historic proportions?

I don't think so.

It's ridiculous for Obama to preach about fiscal restraint.

WASHINGTON -- Urging strict future restraint even as current spending soars, President Barack Obama pledged on Monday to dramatically slash the skyrocketing annual budget deficit as he started to dole out the record $787 billion economic stimulus package he signed last week.

"If we confront this crisis without also confronting the deficits that helped cause it, we risk sinking into another crisis down the road," the president warned, promising to cut the yearly deficit in half by the end of his four-year term. "We cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences."

What Obama says is not what Obama does: "We cannot simply spend as we please and defer the consequences."

"Yes we can."

Obama Tells You How Much Money You Can Earn

I don't like the idea of having the government determine the salaries of executives in corporate America.
Obama imposes limits on executive pay
President Barack Obama on Wednesday imposed a $500,000 cap on senior executive pay for the most distressed financial institutions receiving taxpayer bailout money and promised new steps to end a system of “executives being rewarded for failure.” Obama announced the unusual government intervention into corporate America at the White House, with Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner at his side. The president said the executive-pay limits are a first step, to be followed by the unveiling next week of a sweeping new framework for spending what remains of the $700 billion financial industry bailout that Congress created last year. The pay limit comes amid a national outcry over huge bonuses to executives who head companies that seek taxpayer dollars to remain afloat. The demand for limits was reinforced by revelations that Wall Street firms paid more than $18 billion in bonuses in 2008 amid the economic downturn and the massive infusion of taxpayer dollars....Obama touted the broad symbolism of his action. “This is America. We don’t disparage wealth. We don’t begrudge anybody for achieving success,” Obama said. “But what gets people upset — and rightfully so — are executives being rewarded for failure. Especially when those rewards are subsidized by U.S. taxpayers.” “There is a deep sense across the country that those who were not ... responsible for this crisis are bearing a greater burden than those who were,” Geithner said. Firms that want to pay executives above the $500,000 threshold would have to use stock that could not be sold or liquidated until they pay back the government funds. Generally healthy institutions that get capital infusions from the Troubled Asset Relief Program in the future will have more leeway. They also will face the $500,000 limit, but the cap can be waived with full public disclosure and a nonbinding shareholder vote. Obama said that massive severance packages for executives who leave failing firms are also going to be eliminated. “We’re taking the air out of golden parachutes,” he said. Here's the thing:When tax dollars are being used to bail out private businesses, then they've forfeited their freedom to a certain extent. If they're going to take government money, they should expect to have government intrude on their practices. I understand that.Still, the fact that Obama is deciding salaries makes me very uncomfortable. Why $500,000? If that's the limit today, then maybe tomorrow it will be $250,000 or more or less. What else will Obama decide? How long lunch breaks should be?This doesn't feel right. Should anyone accepting tax dollars be at the mercy of the U.S. Government?If you get food stamps, should Obama decide which foods can be purchased with them?No Cheetos. No Doritos. Maybe if you're overweight, there should be a cap on your food stamps.
...Compensation experts in the private sector have warned that intrusions into the internal decisions of financial institutions could discourage participation in the rescue program and slow down the financial sector’s recovery. They also argue that it could set a precedent for government regulation that undermines performance-based pay.Actually, I think it might be a good thing if participation in the "rescue program" is discouraged. A handout isn't productive in the long run. It creates dependency and invites government intrusion.

Two Sets Of Rules For Obama

More Barack Obama hypocrisy...
WASHINGTON (Reuters) -- U.S. President Barack Obama on Tuesday acknowledged an error after former Senator Tom Daschle withdrew his nomination as health secretary over tax problems, saying, "I've got to own up to my mistake."Obama made the admission in an interview with NBC as part of a media blitz to rally support for a nearly $900 billion economic stimulus plan, an effort overshadowed by the latest embarrassing setback in the formation of his cabinet."I've got to own up to my mistake which is that ultimately it's important for this administration to send a message that there aren't two sets of rules. You know, one for prominent people and one for ordinary folks who have to pay their taxes," Obama said, according to a transcript of the interview.If there aren't two sets of rules, then why is Tim Geithner the secretary of the Treasury?Of course, there are two sets of rules in the Obama administration. Obama supported tax cheat Tom Daschle.Has Obama stripped Daschle of his position as the director of the new White House Office of Health Reform?What was that about two sets of rules?Obama is a hypocrite. Daschle is a crook.

Nobama Not Listening

"There is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy."--PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, JANUARY 9 , 2009Really?From the CATO Institute:
President Obama says that "economists from across the political spectrum agree" on the need for massive government spending to stimulate the economy. In fact, many economists disagree. Hundreds of them, including Nobel laureates and other prominent scholars, have signed the statement that appears in the Cato Institute's ad in the New York Times, Washington Post, and in other national publications. Text of full page ad
"There is no disagreement that we need action by our government, a recovery plan that will help to jumpstart the economy."--PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMA, JANUARY 9 , 2009With all due respect Mr.President, that is not true.Notwithstanding reports that all economists are now Keynesians and that we all support a big increase in the burden of government, we the undersigned do not believe that more government spending is a way to improve economic performance. More government spending by Hoover and Roosevelt did not pull the United States economy out of the Great Depression in the 1930s. More government spending did not solve Japan’s “lost decade” in the 1990s. As such, it is a triumph of hope over experience to believe that more government spending will help the U.S. today. To improve the economy, policymakers should focus on reforms that remove impediments to work, saving, investment and production. Lower tax rates and a reduction in the burden of government are the best ways of using fiscal policy to boost growth.Over 300 leading economists, including 3 Nobel Laureates, signed the statement.Obama is wrong to claim that "everyone" agrees with him.He obviously hasn't been listening.

Obama's Half Brother Busted For Weed

George Hussein Onyango Obama, Barack Obama's half-brother, was arrested.Yes, a sibling of the president of the United States has been arrested.
NAIROBI, Kenya (CNN) -- George Obama, the half-brother of U.S. President Barack Obama, has been arrested by Kenyan police on a charge of possession of marijuana, police said Saturday.Inspector Augustine Mutembei, the officer in charge, said Obama was arrested on charges of possession of cannabis, known in Kenya as Bhang, and resisting arrest. He is scheduled to appear in court Monday, Mutembei said.He is being held at Huruma police post in the capital of Nairobi.Speaking from behind bars, Obama denied the allegations."They took me from my home," he said, "I don't know why they are charging me."George Obama and the president barely know each other, though they have met. George Obama was one of the president's few close relatives who did not go to the inauguration in Washington last week.In his memoir, "Dreams from My Father," Barack Obama describes meeting George as a "painful affair." Barack Obama's trip to Kenya meant meeting family he had never known.CNN reporter David McKenzie always bends over backwards to distance Obama from his brother George.It's strange that McKenzie chose to refer to George as one of Obama's "close relatives." That was obviously a slip.I don't understand why Obama hasn't acted on the "painful affair" of meeting family in Kenya.Why hasn't he done something to help his half-brother?Another question:
So why aren't the networks covering the fact that Barack Obama's half-brother George lives in a 6 by 10 foot hut in the slums of Kenya? It took a reporter for the Italian edition of Vanity Fair to locate George Obama. Obama noted that when he met his famous half-brother in 2006 “we spoke for just a few minutes. It was like meeting a complete stranger.” George Obama also told the magazine that “I live here on less than a dollar month,” and “if anyone says something about my surname, I say we are not related. I am ashamed.” Obama has done absolutely nothing to help his unfortunate half-brother.Will Barack Obama do something now to help his half-brother?George doesn't need the president of the United States to intervene on his behalf, but I think he does need a brother.From The Dish Rag:
George Obama doesn’t know his brother well and he only had one joint on him. “He is not a drug peddler,” Police Chief Joshua Omokulongolo told the Associated Press. Well, that's good to know.George is the youngest of Barack Obama’s father’s seven children. He was not among the new president's Kenyan relatives attending the recent D.C. inauguration. And media reports of George living in a shack and earning $1 day are said -- by him -- to be exaggerated.“I’m proud of how I live,” he told AP in an interview last summer. The media “are tarnishing the family name.”Yeah, well, the joint didn’t help much either.There’s been no comment from the White House on this family matter.No comment from the White House.Will Matt Lauer ask Obama about the matter during the super-hyped Super Bowl pre-game interview?No chance. Obama is lucky he was never arrested on the same charge that landed his half-brother George behind bars. Pot is part of Barack's past. So is coke.

NBC Won't Air Political Commercial During Stuporbowl but....

Matt Lauer's Super Bowl pre-game interview with Barack Obama just concluded.NBC had technical difficulties, marring the interview. That was an embarrassment for NBC.Of course, Lauer and Obama talked politics. Obama pushed the Democrat economic stimulus plan (aka Democrat spending plan). So much for NBC's declaration that the Super Bowl would be a no politics, no advocacy zone.Lauer, dressed in a suit and looking all business, clearly was giddy at being in the presence of Obama. Obama, dressed casually, with his shirt collar open, pretended to be cool and smiled a lot. I think someone told him to be sure to smile.At the end of the interview, Obama did something that I consider to be very uncool.We were shocked at Obama's lame attempt at humor, nearly choking on our chips and taco dip.Lauer held up a photo in the current issue of US Weekly. It was a family pic -- Obama, Michelle, and their two daughters. Then, Lauer showed the cover. Only Michelle and the girls made the cover. Lauer noted that Obama was removed, and replaced with an inset including a photo of Jessica Simpson.
MATT LAUER: You got replaced by Jessica Simspon.BARACK OBAMA: Yeah, who's in a weight battle apparently. Yeah. Oh, well.Obama pointed out LIVE, to tens of millions of viewers, that Jessica Simpson is having a weight battle. That was thoughtful of him to do.Jessica Simpson can't be too thrilled with that swipe from Obama. Not cool at all. She deserves an apology from Obama. He sounded like gaffe machine Joe Biden.

Another Tax Cheat In Obama's Cabinet

Barack Obama sure knows how to pick 'em.Another cabinet pick has tax trouble.It looks like Tom Daschle is an even bigger tax cheat than Tim Geithner.And as usual, the damaging information is dumped very late on Friday afternoon.From the New York Times:
President Obama’s pick for secretary of health and human services, Tom Daschle, failed to pay more than $140,000 in taxes, mostly for free use of a car and driver that had been provided to him by a prominent businessman and Democratic fund-raiser, administration officials said on Friday.Mr. Daschle, concluding that he owed the taxes, filed amended returns and paid more than $100,000 in back taxes and interest on Jan. 2, the officials said. Daschle is a crook.There's no way this tax cheat would have paid these back taxes if Obama hadn't picked him to be a part of his cabinet.
The car and driver were provided by Leo Hindery Jr., a media and telecommunications executive who had been chairman of YES, the New York Yankees regional sports network. In 2005, Mr. Hindery founded a private equity firm known as InterMedia Advisors. Mr. Daschle was chairman of InterMedia’s advisory board.In a financial disclosure statement filed this month with the Office of Government Ethics, Mr. Daschle reported that he had received large amounts of income from InterMedia, including more than $2 million in consulting fees and $182,520 in the form of “company-provided transportation.”The belated tax payments help explain delays in the confirmation of Mr. Daschle, a former Senate Democratic leader who had been expected to win swift approval.Despite the embarrassing admission — the second for one of President Obama’s cabinet choices — the White House and Democratic senators quickly released statements on Friday evening in Mr. Daschle’s support.I love how the Times refers to Daschle's lawbreaking as an "embarrassing admission."The guy is corrupt.And Obama and Dem senators willing to support Daschle are just as slimy."New era of responsibility" keeps echoing in my head. What an absolute crock!
...An administration official said Mr. Daschle had paid $32,090 in back taxes and interest for 2005, $38,507 for 2006 and $69,570 for 2007.The official said Mr. Daschle’s failure to pay the taxes was “a stupid mistake.”We should not have to tolerate all these "stupid mistakes." These crooks are not fit to serve. Period.
A Senate aide said Mr. Daschle also had a tax issue that involved charitable contributions.This is shocking. A Democrat involved in making charitable contributions is almost unheard of.
Administration officials said Mr. Daschle should not be penalized because he had discovered the tax liability himself, paid up and brought it to the attention of the Finance Committee, which is vetting his nomination. They said he realized in June 2008 that he might have a tax problem.If that's the stand that administration officials are taking, then I think they are complicit in Daschle's corruption.
...The White House and the Senate majority leader, Harry Reid, Democrat of Nevada, affirmed their support for Mr. Daschle on Friday.James P. Manley, a spokesman for Mr. Reid, said: “Senator Daschle will be confirmed as secretary of health and human services. He has a long and distinguished career in public service and is the best person to help reform health care in this country.”Robert Gibbs, the White House press secretary, used almost identical words, predicting that Mr. Daschle “will be confirmed.”Sure, tax cheat Daschle will be confirmed. Even though he has other issues, some related to lobbying, Daschle will be confirmed.The Democrats can do whatever they want. They can be as corrupt as they want to be.
...Mr. Obama has named Mr. Daschle to a second position, as director of a new White House Office of Health Reform. That job is not subject to Senate confirmation.Obama has found a way to guarantee that Daschle will be at his side. Slick.So just what is the change that Obama is bringing to Washington?Here's a change: Obama has broken his promise about lobbyists working for him. He's changed his position on that.This is also new: Obama and his comrades are excusing lawbreaking and setting a new standard -- Pay your taxes when you're nominated for a cabinet position. You can hold off until then. No problem.

Bye-Bye Rod

It's over for another corrupt DEMOCRAT, Rod Blagojevich.Illinois Senate Kicks Blagojevich Out of Office
Illinois senators stripped Gov. Rod Blagojevich of power Thursday in the final act of a political drama that handed the reins of state government to his estranged lieutenant governor, Pat Quinn, and likely will end Blagojevich's career in politics.Senators voted unanimously to convict Blagojevich and bar him from holding political office in the state again. Shortly after the vote, Quinn was sworn in as Illinois' new governor.The outcome was never in doubt. In fact, Quinn went to the state Capitol earlier in the day to prepare to be sworn in.Blagojevich said he was saddened and disappointed by the Senate's decision but not at all surprised."I predicted it," he told a pack of reporters outside his home Thursday evening. "The fix was in from the very beginning."Blagojevich vowed to keep fighting for ordinary citizens in the private sector and to clear his name."The fight goes on," he said. "Just because I'm not governor doesn't mean I won't keep fighting for the causes I've always fought for."Blagojevich is delusional."The fix was in from the very beginning."He has to be kidding.Of course, Blago did score a victory in that he was the one to select the person to fill Barack Obama's empty Senate seat, Roland Burris.But he gave it away. He didn't succeed in his plan to sell the seat.Oh, well. You win some, you lose some.Blago did accomplish something that even the great Barack Obama hasn't been able to do. Blago managed to really unite Democrats and Republicans, 59-0.

Zogby Poll-Obama's Performance So Far

It looks like close to half the people in the country have not accepted Barack Obama as their savior. From Zogby International:
Post-inauguration survey finds 52% give President Obama positive job approval ratings, while 19% remain unsureJust 36% of likely voters have positive feelings about the direction the U.S. is headed in the first days of President Barack Obama's new administration, but there has been a dramatic increase from the 14% who felt the country was headed in the right direction earlier this month, a new Zogby Interactive poll shows. Fewer than half (45%) now believe the country is on the wrong track, compared to 70% who said so in early January.This post-inauguration survey finds nearly two-thirds of Democrats (62%) believe the country is headed in the right direction, compared to 31% of political independents and just 9% of Republicans who say the same. While the vast majority of Republicans (76%) now take a negative view of the country's direction, fewer than half of independents (45%) and one in five Democrats (19%) agree. The Zogby Interactive survey of 3,684 likely voters nationwide was conducted Jan. 22-26, 2009, and carries a margin of error of +/- 1.7 percentage points....Just over half (52%) give Obama a positive job performance rating for his first official days in office, while 29% give his job performance a negative rating, and another 19% are not sure. Democrats (80%) and political independents (52%) are most likely to give Obama high job performance marks, compared to just 17% of Republicans. One in four Republicans (25%) and nearly as many independents (22%) were unsure about his job performance so far and did not give him a ranking, compared to half as many Democrats (13%). Younger likely voters, age 18-24, are more likely to give Obama positive marks (56%), and are most likely to have made up their minds early, with just 10% who are unsure about his job performance so far. Among weekly Wal-Mart shoppers, 42% give the new president favorable job scores, compared to 69% of likely voters who never shop there. Just 39% of NASCAR fans give Obama a positive job performance rating.It's interesting that only 42% of Wal-Mart shoppers approve of Obama's performance. Obama is supposed to be the champion of the working class, promising to "spread the wealth around." It also looks like Obama needs to reach out to NASCAR fans if he's hoping to unify the country. Would getting the "Gentlemen, Start your Engines!" gig help? I don't think so. Obama is a liberal extremist. All the collectible plates and coins and other Obama memorabilia in the world can't hide that fact. The Zogby Interactive survey of 3,684 likely voters nationwide was conducted Jan. 22-26, 2009, and carries a margin of error of +/- 1.7 percentage points._____________More Zogby poll results:
Congressional job approval has received a big boost, and now stands at 20%, up from a paltry 4% of likely voters who gave Congress a job performance rating of "excellent" or "good" just a few weeks ago. Democrats are more likely to give Congress positive job ratings (39%), compared to political independents (15%) and Republicans (2%).While the job approval for Congress has jumped, I don't think a 20% approval rating calls for a victory dance

Throw a shoe,Win a drink

ABC News' Teddy Davis reports:Obama Site Linked to 'Bush Shoe Toss' Event
Colin Powell held a press conference in Washington, D.C., Friday, touting the launch of Barack Obama's new Web site, USAService.org, which allows Americans to find -- and to promote -- local service opportunities that are searchable by zip code.President Bush's former secretary of state said he was on the site this morning and vouched for its usefulness.But here's betting that Powell didn't have time to go through all of the events on it.Wanting to see how the Web site works, I typed in my hometown zip code in Chicago to find events within a 10-mile radius.It pointed me to several events, including a blood drive, a graffiti cleanup, and an "Obama Celebration and Bush Shoe Toss."The event, which was listed as a "Day of Service -- January 19," is taking place at the soon-to-open Carnivale Café on the corner of Clark and Belmont."Come celebrate with us," wrote Gilbert Gazan, 46, in the event's description. "Say goodbye to old Georgie ... Throw a shoe at a poster of Bush and win a free drink." A-ha... I'm not feeling this new tone that Obama is supposed to be ushering in.This whole new day in America, new era of bipartisanship, no red states or blue states stuff is garbage...It's all garbage

Don't make it worse

Transcript
PRESIDENT-ELECT OBAMA DELIVERS DEMOCRATIC RESPONSE TO THE PRESIDENT’S WEEKLY RADIO ADDRESS, AS RELEASED BY THE OBAMA-BIDEN PRESIDENTIAL TRANSITION TEAMJANUARY 10, 2009SPEAKER: PRESIDENT-ELECT BARACK OBAMAOBAMA: We start this new year in the midst of an economic crisis unlike any we have seen in our lifetime. We learned yesterday that in the past month alone, we lost more than half a million jobs - a total of nearly 2.6 million in the year 2008. Another 3.4 million Americans who want and need full-time work have had to settle for part-time jobs. And families across America are feeling the pinch as they watch debts mount, bills pile up and savings disappear.How does this economic crisis, the one Obama says is "unlike any we have seen in our lifetime," compare to past recessions?I guess that would depend on how one defines "lifetime."The Roosevelt Recession: (May 1937 - June 1938)--Duration: 13 months--Magnitude:
GDP Decline: 3.4Unemployment Rate: 19.1% (more than four million unemployed)
--Reasons and Causes: The stock market crashed in late 1937. Business blamed the "New Deal", a series of government-financed infrastructure work projects through the Works Projects Administration (WPA) and Civilian Conservation Corps (CCC). These camps provided work and room and board for more than 250,000 men. Government blamed a "capital strike" (lack of investment) on the part of business while "New Dealers" blamed cuts in WPA funding. The first Social Security Insurance deductions pulled $2 billion out of circulation at this time.The "Rolling Adjustment" Recession: (April 1960 - February 1961)--Duration: 10 months--Magnitude:
GDP Decline: 2.4Unemployment Rate: 6.9%--Reasons and Causes: This recession was also known as the "rolling adjustment" for many major U.S. industries, including the automotive industry. Americans shifted to buying compact and often foreign-made cars and industry drew down inventories. Gross national product (GNP) and product demand declined.The Oil Crisis Recession: (November 1973 - March 1975)--Duration: 16 months--Magnitude:
GDP Decline: 3.6Unemployment Rate: 8.8%--Reasons and Causes: This long, deep recession was brought on by the quadrupling of oil prices and high government spending on the Vietnam War. This led to "stagflation" and high unemployment. Unemployment finally reached 9% in May of 1975.The Energy Crisis Recession: (January 1980 - July 1980)--Duration: 6 months--Magnitude:
GDP decline: 1.1%Unemployment Rate: 7.8%--Reasons and Causes: Inflation had reached 13.5% and the Federal Reserve raised interest rates and slowed money supply growth, which slowed the economy and caused unemployment to rise. Energy prices and supply were put at risk causing a confidence crisis as well as inflation.The Iran/Energy Crisis Recession: (July 1981 - November 1982)--Duration: 16 months.--Magnitude:
GDP decline: 3.6%Unemployment Rate: 10.8%--Reasons and Causes: This long and deep recession was caused by the regime change in Iran; the world's second largest producer of oil at the time, the country came to regard the U.S. as a supporter of its ousted regime. The "New" Iran exported oil at inconsistent intervals and at lower volumes, forcing prices higher. The U.S. government enforced a tighter monetary policy to control rampant inflation, which had been carried over from the previous two oil and energy crises. The prime rate reached 21.5% in 1982.Obama should be honest with the American people. He doesn't need to hype the current crisis. He doesn't need to create fear. That's not solving the problem. That's helping it to snowball. That's poor leadership.
These numbers are a stark reminder that we simply cannot continue on our current path. If nothing is done, economists from across the spectrum tell us that this recession could linger for years and the unemployment rate could reach double digits - and they warn that our nation could lose the competitive edge that has served as a foundation for our strength and standing in the world.It’s not too late to change course - but only if we take immediate and dramatic action. Our first job is to put people back to work and get our economy working again. This is an extraordinary challenge, which is why I’ve taken the extraordinary step of working - even before I take office - with my economic team and leaders of both parties on an American Recovery and Reinvestment Plan that will call for major investments to revive our economy, create jobs, and lay a solid foundation for future growth.I asked my nominee for Chair of the Council of Economic Advisers, Dr. Christina Romer, and the Vice President-Elect’s Chief Economic Adviser, Dr. Jared Bernstein, to conduct a rigorous analysis of this plan and come up with projections of how many jobs it will create - and what kind of jobs they will be. Today, I am releasing a report of their findings so that the American people can see exactly what this plan will mean for their families, their communities, and our economy.The report confirms that our plan will likely save or create three to four million jobs. 90 percent of these jobs will be created in the private sector - the remaining 10 percent are mainly public sector jobs we save, like the teachers, police officers, firefighters and others who provide vital services in our communities.The jobs we create will be in businesses large and small across a wide range of industries. And they’ll be the kind of jobs that don’t just put people to work in the short term, but position our economy to lead the world in the long-term.We’ll create nearly half a million jobs by investing in clean energy - by committing to double the production of alternative energy in the next three years, and by modernizing more than 75% of federal buildings and improving the energy efficiency of two million American homes. These made-in-America jobs building solar panels and wind turbines, developing fuel-efficient cars and new energy technologies pay well, and they can’t be outsourced.So if somebody wants to build a coal-powered plant, they can; it's just that it will bankrupt them because they're going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that's being emitted.--BARACK OBAMA
We’ll create hundreds of thousands of jobs by improving health care - transitioning to a nationwide system of computerized medical records that won’t just save money, but save lives by preventing deadly medical errors. And we’ll create hundreds of thousands more jobs in education, equipping tens of thousands of schools with 21st century classrooms, labs and computers to help our kids compete with any worker in the world for any job.We’ll put nearly 400,000 people to work by repairing our infrastructure - our crumbling roads, bridges and schools. And we’ll build the new infrastructure we need to succeed in this new century, investing in science and technology, and laying down miles of new broadband lines so that businesses across our nation can compete with their counterparts around the world.Everybody's watching what's going on in Beijing right now in the Olympics. Think about the money that China has spent on infrastructure. Their ports, their train systems, their airports are all vastly superior to us now, which means if you're a corperation deciding where to do business, you're starting to think Beijing looks like a pretty good option. Why aren't we doing the same thing?---BARACK OBAMA
Finally, we won’t just create jobs, we’ll also provide help for those who’ve lost theirs, and for states and families who’ve been hardest-hit by this recession. That means bi-partisan extensions of unemployment insurance and health care coverage; a $1,000 tax cut for 95 percent of working families; and assistance to help states avoid harmful budget cuts in essential services like police, fire, education and health care.My attitude is that if the economy's good for folks from the bottom up, it's gonna be good for everybody. If you've got a plumbing business, you're gonna be better off if you've got a whole bunch of customers who can afford to hire you, and right now everybody’s so pinched that business is bad for everybody and I think when you spread the wealth around, it's good for everybody.--BARACK OBAMA
Now, given the magnitude of the challenges we face, none of this will come easy. Recovery won’t happen overnight, and it’s likely that things will get worse before they get better.But we have come through moments like this before. We are the nation that has faced down war, depression and fear itself - each time, refusing to yield; each time, refusing to accept a lesser fate. That is the spirit that has always sustained us - that belief that our destiny is not written for us, but by us; that our success is not a matter of chance, but of our own courage and determination. Our resources may be finite, but our will is infinite. And I am confident that if we come together and summon that great American spirit once again, we will meet the challenges of our time and write the next great chapter in our American story."Fear itself."Obama is channeling FDR.At least he didn't start his weekly address by saying "Eleven score and thirteen years ago..."