Really? Hillary….

As the Republican Party has gone to war with itself over Donald Trump’s morality and fitness for the presidency to such an extent that it has produced a #nevertrump movement, it’s hard to miss the fact that there is no #neverhillary movement on the Left even though she’s a loathsome figure. Granted, there are plenty of enthusiastic liberals who prefer the authentic, untainted embrace of an open socialist to the scripted foulness of Hillary Clinton, but at the end of the day, almost all of them are okay with her.

Let me ask a question the mainstream media is always happy to ask about Republicans, but never asks about its preferred candidates on the Left:  What does it say about you as a person if you besmirch yourself by voting for Grandma Benghazi?

Where, now, according to her revision of history, no one died.

Here’s a woman who lies so often that her name has practically become synonymous with deception.

Her lies are lies. Her Truth is a lie.

Unlike her husband, who was such an artful liar that people wanted to believe him when he wasn’t telling the truth, Hillary is ham-fisted about it. She tells obvious lies that everyone from the media to her enemies, to her friends know are lies right from the beginning.

But she gets away with it because the Liberal Media will not call her on them and her zombie followers haven’t got the mind to object.

How do you vote for a woman so dishonest that she claims her daughter was jogging around the World Trade Center on 911 or said with a straight face that she landed under sniper fire in Bosnia?

Because a) She’s a Woman. b) She’s a Democrat. That’s all the zombies need. There is nothing intelligent behind it.

When she lies about having her own email server and about putting our national security at risk by having huge numbers of classified emails sent to it, how do you respect yourself when she gets caught lying about it over and over again?

“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.”

And Liberals are all in on The State.

Speaking of that, there are few things less American than allowing someone to get away with breaking the law just because she’s privileged. It’s not even controversial to say that anyone not named “Clinton” who sent more than 2000 classified emails to a private server would lose security clearance and would be going to jail. In fact, even the Obama Administration has already put people in jail for doing less than Hillary Clinton has done. So, how do you look your own children in the eyes when you vote for a woman with an indictment hanging over her head who’s hoping to get off because she’s “above the law?”

Because she not an evil, racist, bigoted, Republican. 🙂

Additionally, whatever you want to say about the Republican Party this year, at least we knocked off Jeb Bush. How do you rally behind an even more pathetic Democratic equivalent, a mediocre woman whose entire career has been based on a loveless, dysfunctional marriage to a serial adulterer?

Because she’s a Woman and HIS dick works. 🙂

That should be her campaign slogan: “Vote For Hillary: She Married The Right Man!”

That would be a much better slogan than “Hillary For America.” Other than Barack Obama, there’s no one that half of America would rather see in the White House less than Hillary Clinton.  When you choose someone who has been despised by half the country for as long as Hillary has as your candidate, you’re saying “Screw you and drop dead” to everyone who doesn’t vote for your candidate.

That would be being a Democrat.

That’s doubly true since it goes without saying that there can be nothing but open political warfare between the GOP and a woman who has publicly declared that “Republicans” are her enemies. If you think our government is dysfunctional now, you haven’t seen anything compared to what it will look like if Hillary becomes President.

But it will be all The Republican’s Fault, as it has been for the last decade. 🙂

Yet, you’re supposed to stomach the nausea-inducting cocktail that is Hillary Clinton just because she’s a woman.


She lies all the time! But, she’s a woman! She belongs in jail after what she did with her email server. It’s a woman’s turn! She was a mediocre senator and people died in Benghazi because she ignored hundreds of security warnings? I guess some people just don’t like women!

No, they’ve been conditioned to hate Republicans.

It’s disgusting and ironic that a woman who worked overtime to protect a sexual predator like her husband from the consequences of his actions now wants to play the “girl power” card as the central theme of her campaign, but she has long since abandoned human decency in her all-consuming quest for power. But, what do you say about the people who are willing to potentially play along with this disgusting charade for the next eight years? The people who are just fine with pinning every failure, every lie and every inevitable disaster caused by Hilllary Clinton on sexism? If you at least feel a little bit of shame when you pull the lever for Hillary, then congratulations, you still have a heart.  (Townhall)

I wonder if the liberal Media weill report on the non-riot, non-blocking, non-violent Conservatives at Hillary’s event today in Phoenix?

Naw, it will just glow with her divine light. 🙂

The Housewife of DC From the Arkansas Shore,Madame President

Political Cartoons by Gary Varvel

Let’s be honest: It is just an unfortunate fact that Hillary Clinton stands a good chance of becoming the next president of the United States.

As unappealing as that prospect is, it’s true. It has nothing to do with policy – aside from being old enough, Hillary lacks any qualifications a nation should desire in a leader. It has everything to do with celebrity, and the Clintons are the political Kardashians.

Aside from making millions upon millions of dollars, what do the Kardashians do? Yes, they have businesses now, but they’re all based on, and sell, the celebrity they have. They didn’t create anything; they didn’t start companies that employed thousands of people and then become famous. They did all of that afterwards to wring every last dollar out of that fame. And God bless them for it.

The Kardashians are true capitalists – they saw an opportunity, seized it, and made hundreds of millions of dollars off it. Sure, it all started with a sex tape that only a decade earlier would have had the entire family hanging their heads in shame, but the moral degradation of society they spearheaded aside, they earned their money.

Granted, they earned it through no real talent, skill, intellect or any other attribute that could be considered beneficial to society, but they played the cards they were dealt and made a fortune. They are the embodiment of the American Dream, at least in concept (execution is a different story).

The Clinton family has done pretty much the same thing.

The Kardashian wealth came from patriarch Robert, who made a fortune as a lawyer and businessman. The fame came from a porn tape of then-unknown Kim with a then-famous rapper time has all but forgotten.

The Clinton wealth comes from Bill Clinton being elected president. It’s safe to say that no one in history has milked more personal wealth from past elected office than he has. Hillary’s fame comes from having married him and not divorced him after numerous affairs. Although there (thankfully) wasn’t a sex tape, Hillary’s parlayed her victim status from the Monica Lewinsky affair into a U.S. Senate seat from a state she’d never lived in.

Hillary had gone to good schools and practiced law, but she was nothing special, just Bill’s wife. Kim had grown up around rich and famous people, but no one cared who she was because she hadn’t done anything.

Media attention elevated both, especially after the sex scandals in which they were involved. Sympathy was drummed up for Hillary; curiosity for Kim. But the result was the same: elevated, unearned status to the point of being culturally important.

Hillary Clinton had accomplished nothing in life that hadn’t been accomplished by 100,000 other female lawyers in the country except for one thing – she married a guy who became president. Deciding to live life as an enabler of a sexual predator has rewarded her with fame, incredible wealth and unimaginable power. But she didn’t really earn any of it; it was, for the sake of brevity, given to her.

In a very real sense, Kim Kardashian has accomplished more than Hillary has. Yes, Hillary was twice elected to the Senate, but that came largely as a result of sympathy and a famously inept opponent. New York Democrats essentially cleared the field for her, the general election (after former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani dropped out because he had been diagnosed with cancer) was a formality. It could not have been easier if she’d been appointed.

Hillary had no real qualifications to represent New York in the Senate, and she had no real accomplishments in the Senate. But she was portrayed as a star because of who she was, much like celebrity magazines put Kim on their covers because she exists.

From the Senate, Hillary ran an awful, aimless campaign for the 2008 Democratic Party nomination for president, losing to a man with even fewer achievements on his resume. She was appointed secretary of state not for her ability, but to prevent her from mounting a primary challenge in 2012.

With zero foreign policy experience, Hillary was a disaster running the State Department. Her ineptitude was so obvious from the start that President Obama did not involve her in the most complex foreign policy area on the planet – the Middle East. Three days into his presidency, President Obama created the position of “United States Special Envoy for Middle East Peace” and appointed former Sen. George Mitchell to fill it.

Kim Kardashian is paid to show up to events and be seen as a way to draw attention to the events. She is not expected to say or do anything important. As secretary of state, Hillary Clinton was paid to show up to events, draw attention to them and be seen as showing the United States cared about them. But she didn’t do or say anything important. That job was left to Mitchell.

In many ways the Kardashians are better than the Clintons. Sure, they’ve lowered the bar of celebrity and degrade our culture, but people have to voluntarily choose to empower and enrich them. The Clintons have been empowered and enriched at our expense.

If someone sucks up to a Kardashian it costs only that person. If someone sucks up to a Clinton, it costs all of us. The Kardashians can only annoy; the Clintons can grant government contracts, special permissions, taxpayer dollars, etc., etc.

Given the choice, I’d rather see Kim Kardashian in the White House than Hillary Clinton in 2017. We’ve literally seen everything both have to offer, and although what Kim offers is worthless and damaging, at least she doesn’t complete the Clinton trifecta of being corrupt to boot. (Derek Hunter)

We could call the new show on Bravo: MY Clinton Life! 🙂

Hosted by, this guy…

Political Cartoons by Michael Ramirez

The Case For Hillary

Michael Ramirez Cartoon

1) After being accused of racism every time they disagree with the President, Americans will enjoy the change of pace by being accused of sexism every time they disagree with the President.

At least we’d get rid of “race relations” being the problem. We’d replace it with “gender relations” and White Males would STILL be the ultimate enemy!! 🙂

2) America’s military would be unstoppable because of three little words that Hillary would bring to the White House, “Flying Monkey Legions!”

Vast Right Wing Conspiracies would be true. 🙂

3) It would be terrible for our first black President to be the worst POTUS of all time and Hillary can take care of that problem.

4) Americans LOVE dynasties! Next it’s Jeb Bush’s turn. Then Chelsea Clinton. THEN Michelle Obama. Then Jenna Bush. Then Malia Obama and so on and so on into infinity. If Americans didn’t like being ruled by royal families, then you’d think there would have been some small indication of it in our history by now, right? 😉

5) We Americans take pride in giving good value for the money that’s paid to us and all those foreign governments that paid off Hillary when she was Secretary of State would REALLY hit the jackpot if she became President.

You wouldn’t have to worry about whether the President was corrupt because you’d already know she is BEFORE you elected her so nothing would be a surprise. The media wouldn’t would have to cover it as a “scandal” because that would just be Hillary being Hillary so nothing out of the ordinary there.

6) She’ll be a fantastic role model for young women who’ll learn that as long as you marry the right man and ride his coattails at every opportunity – you, too, can succeed!

7) Well, if she could handle being Secretary of State with no problems, then obviously…oh wait, she didn’t, did she?

8) Eight more years of complete and utter servile capitulation to a President of the United States should be enough to destroy the whole liberal mainstream media’s reputation for good.

9) If Hillary were to win, then all the people who tell America how incompetent she’ll be will be able to enjoy being proven right about her over and over again just as they have been about Barack Obama.

10) It’s long since time that small children were shown The Vagina Monologues before the White House Easter Egg Roll.

11) Everybody THINKS he can be President, but for hundreds of years, Americans have insisted on choosing Presidents based on “merit” and “accomplishments.” If both Obama and Hillary can be President, then that proves any undeserving idiot can do the job as long as he or she checks the right diversity box.

12) Despite the many credible claims that the money she made was part of a shady bribe, obviously parlaying $1,000 into $100,000 in highly speculative commodity market trading proves that Hillary Clinton really is…THE SMARTEST WOMAN ON EARTH!

13) Who could possibly be a better role model for young women in America than a politician who has been endorsed by Larry Flynt AND Hookers for Hillary?

14) Replacing Air Force One with a broomstick would mean tens of millions in savings for the taxpayers!

15) Like duh, she’s an incompetent lying socialist who will drive the final nails in America’s coffin after 8 years of Barack Obama and…oh wait, the goal here IS to destroy America, right? Oh, wow…it’s not? Then maybe she’s NOT the right candidate. (John Hawkins)

Naw, she the only one LEFT according to the Media… 🙂

And imagine how how annoyed the Jihadists will be with a Woman in charge! How dare we do something so vulgar and such a heresy! Maybe we can get her to wear a Burka. 🙂

Imagine what Bill could do for fundraiser for her re-election in 2020! The Hookers For Hillary could become his extended family, especially with Bill around to “entertain” them.

Imagine his School Lunch program. Wieners for everyone!

Think of the possibilities! Maybe even get Monica Lewinsky for a Cabinet “position”.

Political Cartoons by Henry Payne

It’s a Tough Life

Reportedly, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napalitano spends lots of time at the Opera, in The President’s box. (WW)

It’s much better than reading The AZ immigration Law.

Or Securing the border AGAINST Illegal Aliens.

You just put out alerts that known islamic radical recruiters may try and cross the border.

Even when you can’t call them “radical islamists”, and barely utter the word “terrorist”.

And you aren’t planning on doing anything about it anyhow.

You give Obama the idea to make the same show piece “look ma, I’m doing something” move by sending 1,200 troops to sit around and do paperwork but make it look like your “securing” the border.

It worked, so you thought, when you were Governor. So why not do it again, but on a grander scale.

Kind of like the Opera.

After all, last year you said the terrorists you were worried about were “right wingers” and military people, OUR military people.

Who cares about actual terrorists.

Certainly not our Big Sis.

Then, the latest spin from the White House on the Joe Sestek case, that they took nearly 2 weeks after the primary (and 3 months after Sestak first said it) where he defeated Obama-backed Arlen Specter, to say that the offer they made to him which would have been a crime if it was quid pro quo goes like this, according to the White House…

Rahm “Never let a crisis go to waste” Emanuel, White House Chief of Staff, asked Bill Clinton to ask Joe Sestek if he’d be interested in an “non-compensated” Government promotion (of sorts).

And so, the report this morning that former President Bill Clinton was tasked by White House chief of staff Rahm Emanuel to make such an approach to Rep. Joe Sestak — allegedly offering him an unpaid advisory role on an intelligence board in exchange for getting him to drop his primary bid against Sen. Arlen Specter (Pa.) — would not normally raise much of a stir in official Washington.

That the story has become a major controversy, a regular fixture on cable news chat shows and a momentum-killer for Sestak following his come-from behind victory against Specter in last week’s Pennsylvania primary is evidence of how the White House mishandled the controversy, according to conversations with several high-level Democratic strategists.

“How do you make something out of nothing?,” asked one such operative who was granted anonymity to speak candidly about the matter. “By acting guilty when you’re innocent.”

Another senior party official said that the White House “has a lot of egg on their face” and described the events as a “PR nightmare”.

So they couldn’t even handle this without screwing it up. And you want to trust The Supreme Court, Health Care, Congress, and the nations future to these nuckleheads?!

But you have to admire Obama for choosing Bill Clinton as the patsy. You have a President that was impeached (just not removed from office) for PERJURY as your star player!!

And, his biggest rival, Hillary, has another, “Oh, Bill…” moment to deal with.

Very savvy.

So I wonder what Bill Clinton got out of it?

So, no gentle readers, I don’t buy this lipstick on this pig.

If it was this <bleep>ing simple and you could off-load it onto Bill Clinton why the hell did you wait so long?

Why all the stonewalling?


Because they were working on this “explanation”. They had to manufacture it.

It had to sound plausible so that even the Liberal Media that was hounding them would buy it.

That’s why.

Kind of like the Administration protestation that they were on the Oil Spill from “Day One” but never mentioned it until Day 8.

And Never, to this day, have even acknowledged the 500-year flood in Tennessee.

Other than knowing it’s where Al Gore was from, do they even know where it is?

And why was that not a crisis?

Nothing to exploit, apparently.

So will Bill Clinton be behind the Oil spill and the Birth Certifcate also?

Ah, shucks… 😦

Allies of the White House argue that the Sestak situation was less PR blunder than conscious choice to accept some short term pain for long term gain (or at least less long term pain).

Their argument is that the White House could have pushed out an answer to the Sestak job controversy quickly but, in so doing, would have run the risk of not having all the facts of a relatively complex situation straight — making it a real possibility that they would be bludgeoned by the press if there was a mistake or inconsistency in the original statement.(Washington Post).

They had to get their story straight first, and hide the bodies and the evidence….:(

Kind like that fishy story of Obama going to see his “grandmother” very unexpectedly during the campaign when the Birth Certificate was a hot issue and then the Officials in Hawaii comes out says “there’s not thing see here!”

It’s smells rotten.

At Least Obama has one Clinton willing to throw down his “honor” for the cause though.

Hey Bill, Can I get you to…. <fill in the blank>

Aw, Shucks, Barack… 😦

Congressman Darell Issa (who has been pushing for a Special Investigator):

“The White House has offered a version of events that has important differences from what Congressman Sestak has been saying for months – that he was offered a ‘job’ by ’someone in the White House’ in exchange for leaving the Pennsylvania Senate race.

“I’m very concerned that…the White House has…worked to craft a story behind closed doors and coordinate with those involved.”

“The White House has admitted today to coordinating an arrangement that would represent an illegal quid-pro-quo as federal law prohibits directly or indirectly offering any position or appointment, paid or unpaid, in exchange for favors connected with an election.

“..Regardless of what President Clinton or Congressman Sestak now say, it is abundantly clear that this kind of conduct is contrary to President Obama’s pledge to change ‘business as usual’ and that his Administration has engaged in the kind of political shenanigans he once campaigned to end.”

Now, if only he could get BP, Illegal Aliens, and that “laser like focus on Jobs” to go away so he could enjoy his “vacation” in Chicago and then get back to taking over more industries and destroying more “greedy” capitalist!

Damn, he needs to play more Golf while Rome burns! 🙂

Words Matter

Former President Bill Clinton warned of a slippery slope from angry anti-government rhetoric to violence like the 1995 Oklahoma City bombing, saying “the words we use really do matter.”

Like “Hope and Change”??

“That depends on what the definition of ‘is’ is??”

“Oversees contingency Operation”??






“Ignorant hick”

Yes, Mr. Former President words do matter, but these matter to Liberals. They are meant to be censored, downplayed, discredited, and/or pissed on.

CBS/NYT wants to dismiss the people with “white, highly educated, rich people” but yet they are also “ignorant, racist hicks” according to the media.

Because, like Bill said, words matter. And to Liberals the word matters as a weapon to be used to destroy, obfuscate, or deny their opposition the ability to speak clearly and properly.

At least that’s the goal.

It’s Orwell time again.

Newspeak : In the novel by Orwell, it is described as being “the only language in the world whose vocabulary gets smaller every year”.

One character, Syme, says admiringly of the shrinking volume of the new dictionary: “It’s a beautiful thing, the destruction of words.”

The destruction of thought. If you can’t think in opposition, you can’t be in opposition.

Duckspeak is a Newspeak term meaning literally to quack like a duck  or to speak without thinking. Duckspeak can be either good or “ungood” (bad), depending on who is speaking, and whether what they are saying is in following with the ideals of Big Brother. To speak rubbish and lies may be ungood, but to speak rubbish and lies for the good of “The Party” may be good. In the appendix to 1984, Orwell explains:
“     Ultimately it was hoped to make articulate speech issue from the larynx without involving the higher brain centres at all. This aim was frankly admitted in the Newspeak word duckspeak […]. Like various words in the B vocabulary, duckspeak was ambivalent in meaning. Provided that the opinions which were quacked out were orthodox ones, it implied nothing but praise, and when the Times referred to one of the orators of the Party as a doubleplusgood duckspeaker it was paying a warm and valued compliment.

Crimethink is the Newspeak word for thoughtcrime  (thoughts that are unorthodox, or are outside the official government platform), as well as the verb meaning “to commit thoughtcrime”. Goodthink, which is approved by the Party, is the opposite of crimethink.
In the book, Winston Smith, the main character, writes in his diary:
“Thoughtcrime does not entail death: thoughtcrime IS death.”

Doublethink: The power of holding two contradictory beliefs in one’s mind simultaneously, and accepting both of them….To tell deliberate lies while genuinely believing in them, to forget any fact that has become inconvenient, and then, when it becomes necessary again, to draw it back from oblivion for just so long as it is needed, to deny the existence of objective reality and all the while to take account of the reality which one denies — all this is indispensably necessary. Even in using the word doublethink it is necessary to exercise doublethink. For by using the word one admits that one is tampering with reality; by a fresh act of doublethink one erases this knowledge; and so on indefinitely, with the lie always one leap ahead of the truth.

The Ministry of Truth is involved with news media, entertainment, the fine arts and educational books. Its purpose is to rewrite history and change the facts to fit Party doctrine for propaganda  effect. For example, if Big Brother makes a prediction that turns out to be wrong, the employees of the Ministry of Truth go back and rewrite the prediction so that any prediction Big Brother previously made is accurate. This is the “how” of the Ministry of Truth’s existence. Within the novel Orwell elaborates that the deeper reason for its existence is to maintain the illusion that the Party is absolute. It cannot ever seem to change its mind (if, for instance, they perform one of their constant changes regarding enemies during war) or make a mistake (firing an official or making a grossly misjudged supply prediction), for that would imply weakness and to maintain power the Party must seem eternally right and strong.

Any of this sound familiar??

If not, you’re in the wrong blog…

President Obama on Thursday said he was “amused” by the tax day protests going on around the country to commemorate the IRS deadline for tax returns, and said the Tea Party movement’s protests of his policies were misguided.

“I have been amused a little over the past couple of days where people have been having these rallies about taxes,” Obama said.

I’m glad you find this funny, because we sincerely hope your still laughing when you’re planning your 50-foot monolith to yourself in Chicago in 2013 because you’re not the President anymore.

“We sort of have to assume we’re running into a headwind,” Kaine said.

The president’s remarks came at the second fundraiser of the night, at Miami’s Arsht Center for the Performing Arts, which about 1,000 people paid between $250 and $1,250 to attend.

The night’s first fundraiser was the more glitzy affair, held at the home of Gloria and Emelio Estefan, where a smaller group of donors paid $30,400 per couple to attend.

(gee, no “middle class” people there. Just evil rich people…) 🙂

The DNC expected to raise $2.5 million from the events, a DNC official told a reporter traveling with the president.

*The president’s quotes were originally provided to the entire White House press corps by a pool reporter traveling with the president in Miami and were updated when TV footage of his speech was aired. The quote originally read: “‘So I’ve been amused in recent days by these people having rallies,’ Obama said.”

November is Coming, Mr. President.


The Fight For 41

Today decides the nation.

Socialism or Not.

The election in Massachusetts will decide who gets the seat of the late Sen. Edward Kennedy.

The Republican wins, they have 41 seats. Enough to stop the Democrats by filibuster.

Which means the Democrats will Lie, Cheat, Steal, and say anything to preserve it.

Morality today, at least from the Democrats has the day off.

And if the Republican, Scott Brown, wins as previous noted the Democrats will try to cram Health Care down before he is sworn in by hook or by Crook.

As this Headline on the Liberal blog site illustrates:

Pelosi: “We will have healthcare — one way or another”

“Let’s remove all doubt, we will have healthcare one way or another,” Pelosi said during an event in San Francisco on Monday. “Certainly the dynamic would change depending on what happens in Massachusetts. Just the question about how we would proceed. But it doesn’t mean we won’t have a health care bill.”

There is one way to pass the bill, even without 60 votes in the Senate, that’s getting a lot of attention now. But Pelosi probably won’t like it, and neither will a fair amount of her members.

The procedure in question would involve simply having the House vote on the bill that the Senate has already passed. That would mean avoiding yet another cloture vote in the Senate, one Democrats would be likely to lose if their caucus is down to 59 members after the special election in Massachusetts on Tuesday.

House liberals will be upset about this idea, and progressive activists would likely be angry as well, but it may well be the only option left, and Democrats are reportedly leaning towards it. On Monday night, the New York Times reported: “The White House and Democratic Congressional leaders, scrambling for a backup plan to rescue their health care legislation if Republicans win the special election in Massachusetts on Tuesday, are preparing to ask House Democrats to approve the Senate version of the bill, which would send the measure directly to President Obama for his signature.”

Remember when this was alledgedly for the good of the American people?

I never thought so. But remember when that was what was said?

Apparently, neither did they.

Democrats are mobilized by the prospect of conceding a Senate seat in a state where they control all 10 House seats. President Barack Obama stumped for Coakley in a trip to Boston Sunday. He also cut a new television ad, while his grassroots organizing group says it placed 93,000 (robo)calls across the state on Jan. 16 alone.

“In some ways, Republicans have already won,” said Jennifer Duffy, the Senate analyst for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report in Washington. “Nobody ever imagined a special election in Massachusetts for Ted Kennedy’s seat would ever get remotely competitive.”

Research “strongly suggests” that Brown, 50, will defeat Coakley, 56, the Washington-based nonpartisan Rothenberg Political Report said. That outcome or even a narrow Coakley win could discourage House or Senate Democrats in competitive districts and states from running in this November’s elections amid a sagging economy and declining poll numbers for Obama.(

Democrats could try a strong-arm tactic, such as rushing to hold a final Senate vote before Brown is sworn in, knowing it would ignite a ferocious public outcry.

If Brown wins, health care’s fate will turn on the Democrats’ answer to a wrenching question: Which is worse, enduring such a firestorm of criticism at the start of an election year, or admitting defeat on their top agenda item despite controlling the House, Senate and White House?

“I think Democrats fully understand they have to pass this legislation,” said Ron Pollack, head of the Families USA advocacy group. “The alternative is an absolute disaster.”

“Put the corn where the hogs can get it,” (Former President Bill Clinton on “educating the public to the benefits of the Congress’ plan) Clinton said, using a colorful phrase for making something clear and accessible, according to an aide who took notes at the speech. (Washington Post)

Anyone for Revenge of The Hogs? 🙂

If he wins, and I pray he does, the Democrats might actually discover who the American People are again.

And won’t that be a shock to their little minds.

Obama warned that much of his agenda in Congress, specifically his health-care overhaul and proposed fee on big banks, hinges on retaining Kennedy’s former seat.

“We’ve begun to deliver on the change you voted for,” Obama told a crowd of about 1,500 people Jan. 17 at Northeastern University in Boston.

This would be massive spending, pork & bribes, special deals for apparatchiks, no emphasis on job creation, and a year-long super-duper hyper-partisan fight over control of who lives and who dies that has been nastier than any fight since The Civil War.

The Government Mandating by law you must have insurance or potentially go to Jail.

And the massive taxes to come with it.

Yeah, that’s what people voted for. 😦

So let’s all pray for the Brown Miracle.

We Need “Hope & Change!”

“Yes We Can!” 🙂

The Agenda Uber Alles

To Lord Doom, Al Gore: “It is better to deserve honors and not have them than to have them and not deserve them.”Mark Twain.

Unless, you’re making millions off the suckers. Oh, and when the jig is up, just ignore them.

WSJ: JOHN STOSSEL, HOST: I wish that Al Gore were here to debate him (Jerry Taylor, Energy Analyst for the Cato Institute) and me. We asked Vice President Gore, and his office sent this e-mail saying: “It’s very difficult to decline invitations such as yours, but it’s an unfortunate inevitability of the growing influence of the climate crisis message and the demand on Mr. Gore’s time. (Boos from audience) We do apologize, but thank you for your interest.” (Via email 11/23/09).

Come on, Mr. Gore. The idea that you don’t have time is pretty silly. You have time to go on programs like “Saturday Night Live.” It’s not a time issue. (Applause) Truth is, you won’t debate anyone. You’ve been asked lots of times, but you always say no. But if you do ever want to debate, we’d love to offer you the air time. We will give it to you. I’ll give you a special phone number that goes to this phone. Glenn Beck has that red phone that goes to the President. For you Mr. Gore, the green phone. I await your call.

Of course, Stossel was quite right: despite claiming to be an expert on this subject, Al Gore refuses to debate anyone. And, he only goes on television programs where he knows he can say whatever he wants, regardless of accuracy, and never get challenged.

Such is what happened when he appeared with CNN’s John Roberts and Kiran Chetry Wednesday morning, and with MSNBC’s Andrea Mitchell Wednesday afternoon.

That media not only comply with Gore’s ability to present unchallenged falsehoods to the nation, but also let him get away with never being on the air with anyone that disagrees with his views, is nothing less than appalling.

That said, Stossel shouldn’t hold his breath waiting for this charlatan’s call.

Gore’s got the media in his back pocket, and he’ll never voluntarily relinquish control.

And he is still at it with incredibly stupid comments. On the Conan O’Brien show of 11/12/09, he said the temperature in the mantle, the deep layer immediately below the crust, is several million degrees just two kilometers down. This is many times hotter than the Sun.

This is blatantly wrong. But don’t expect the “consensus’ media to care.  After all, according to them, they aren’t bias. We are. 🙂

In Gore’s and his lemmings world, facts are facts when they are spoken by them, not when they are proved.

As reported by Not Evil Just Wrong Monday:

In several recent interviews the former vice president said that the Climategate emails were “sound and fury signifying nothing…the most recent one is more than 10 years old.”

However the reality is that the most recent email from Climategate is less than two months old. The emails undermine the science of Climate Alarmism and that is why the alarmists are so reluctant to address them or like Mr Gore they make factually incorrect statements about how relevant they are.

On CNN: Host John Roberts, to his credit, was quick to correct Gore when he was interviewing him on the same subject saying that, “many are far more recent than that.” Gore did not respond.

Mr. Gore says he cares a lot about science and scientific accuracy. His whole theory of Climate Alarmism depends on it but today at the United Nations Copenhagen Climate Conference he refused several opportunities to correct the record when asked about his errors by journalist and film maker Phelim McAleer. Instead his Press Secretary grabbed McAleer’s microphone to stop questions being put to the vice-president.

Have U.N. security officials been instructed to prevent journalists from asking climate realists uncomfortable questions?

Best to just ignore the annoying people who actually want to debate you.

Especially when you continue to tell whoppers:

Now he has been caught in stating in a speech at the climate talks, that there is a 75 percent chance that Arctic ice cap could become “ice free” during the summer months in as little as the next five to seven years.

Only problem is, the scientist who Gore cited as the source for his whopper, Dr Wieslaw Maslowski, was quoted AFTER Gore’s speech as saying his research revealed ‘nothing of the sort’.

‘It’s unclear to me how this figure was arrived at,’ Dr Maslowski said. ‘I would never try to estimate likelihood at anything as exact as this.’

And Dr Jim Overland, a leading oceanographer at the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration said:  ‘This is an exaggeration that opens the science up to criticism from skeptics,’.

Two years ago, a High Court judge (in the UK)  ruled his Oscar-winning documentary An Inconvenient Truth was ‘alarmist’ and contained nine scientific errors.

It’s the latest embarrassment for Gore, an outspoken environmental campaigner who has earned millions of pounds from green investments and faced repeated criticism for scaremongering.

The court said copies of the film sent to secondary schools should be accompanied with notes to balance Gore’s views.

Examiner: Rather than recognizing that the best science is skeptical science, any skepticism is now treated with the “ostrich in the sand” syndrome and ridiculed off the stage.  Irony being it is actually the “consensus” clucks who are putting their heads in the sand.  Dutifully following the dogma of their leaders, (Gore, Soros, Obama) they shout down heretics in the best traditions of the Spanish Inquisition.  Galileo and Newton would be most uncomfortable at this convention.

Yes indeed, these citizens are most dutiful to the dogma.  In fact, these “citizens of the world” are so dutiful to their cause that when one Professor Stephen Schneider (IPCC contributor extraordinaire) was being “pressured” by independent film maker Phelim McAleer regarding said professor’s views on the climategate conundrum and it’s effect upon the “science” of climate change, an assistant to the professor felt it necessary to summon armed UN security guards.

Why bother with facts when you can just call a security guard instead?  The irony is that the questioning was at a press conference called by Professor Schneider to launch his new book!

Speaking of Books, Lord Doom has a new tome out: “Our Choice” which depicts a global warming ravaged earth on part of the cover. Problem is:

The retouched image depicting our planet at some point in the future, contains images of five hurricanes. One storm off the coast of Florida is turning in a clockwise motion, an impossibility in the northern hemisphere. Another hurricane is shown near Peru and the equator, a place where hurricanes cannot form. It is also a bit ironic that so many storms are depicted when hurricane activity is currently at a 30 year low.

In the modified image, Cuba appears to be completely submerged. That would require a sea level rise of more than 6580 feet as that is the height of Pico Turquino on the island. Much of Florida as well is now under water as is a great deal of Central America.

The problem is that if there were indeed a rise of that level, Florida would be entirely gone as its highest point only reaches an altitude of 345 feet. Georgia, Alabama, Mississippi, Louisiana, South Carolina, Virginia and virtually every single other state that borders an ocean (and many landlocked states) would be submerged. Even Denver, the Mile High City, would be under water although presumably its residents could escape to the Rocky Mountains.

In fact, only 17 of the 50 states in the union would have part of their land above sea level, only two of which are east of the Rockies. Globally, that sea rise would be devastating as well sending many nations under the surface of the ocean including South Korea, the United Kingdom, Jordan, the Czech Republic and dozens more. (examiner)


But it looks good!

The Forthcoming Movie Poster?

I guess the truth was inconvenient for a good cover shot.

But don’t judge a book by it’s cover. 🙂

Lumumba Di Aping of Sudan, who chairs the G77 group of developing nations deriding the U.S. Congress: “You approve billions of dollars in defence budgets: why can’t you approve $200 billion to save the world?” or the Algerian chairman of the African group, Kemal Djemouai, lamenting: “The developed countries found $1.4 trillion to combat the financial crisis. Now they are offering just $10 billion to fight climate change.”

For if it truly IS just about the money, that would mean the entire Copenhagen summit (complete with 140 private jets and hundreds of limousines mind you) is nothing but a global socialistic shakedown of the western democracies.

Shocking! 🙂

Pay particular attention to the paragraph:

An official in the Nigerian delegation which was part of the walkout, said Europe’s lowball offers of financial support were “pathetic. He added: “There will be no commitments from the G77 [bloc of developing countries] until we get better assurances about financial and technology transfers,” reports our colleague Alessandro Torello from Copenhagen.

Low-ball offers?  Financial and technology transfers?

Show me the money baby, show me the money.

That seems to be the real “consensus”, especially in Copenhagen where the only people being arrested are the ones who think the conferencees are not doing enough to cram it down everyone’s throat.

Much like Health Care Reform.

A CNN poll shows 36% of the public in favor of what the Democratic Senate is trying to do to health care, 61% opposed. It is clear what the public wants Congress to do: Take a mulligan and start over.

Fifty-six percent (56%) of U.S. voters now oppose the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the highest level of opposition found – reached three times before – in six months of polling.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that just 40% of voters favor the health care plan.

Perhaps more significantly, 46% now Strongly Oppose the plan, compared to 19% who Strongly Favor it.

“The most significant detail in the data is that 63% of senior citizens oppose the plan, including 52% who strongly oppose it,” says Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports. “Seniors are significant in this debate both because they use the health care system more than anyone else and because they vote more than younger voters.”

USA Today/Gallup poll finds public support for such efforts still below the majority level. Forty-six percent of Americans say they would advise their member of Congress to vote for healthcare legislation.

In a recent NBC poll, just 32 percent of respondents said they believe the president’s health care plan is a “good idea”; 47 percent said it’s a “bad idea,” the highest that number has been. According to a recent ABC News poll, majorities now for the first time disapprove of Obama’s work on health care (53 percent) and oppose the health care reform package making its way through Congress (51 percent).

In the ABC/Washington Post poll, more than half of those polled, 53 percent, see higher costs for themselves if the proposed changes go into effect than if the current system remains intact.

NBC News/Wall Street Journal poll finds that those believing President Obama’s health-reform plan is a good idea has sunk to its lowest level.

Just 32 percent say it’s a good idea, versus 47 percent who say it’s a bad idea.

In addition, for the first time in the survey, a plurality prefers the status quo to reform. By a 44-41 percent margin, respondents say it would be better to keep the current system than to pass Obama’s health plan.

American voters, by a 55 – 35 percent margin, are more worried that Congress will spend too much money and add to the deficit than it will not act to overhaul the health care system, according to a Quinnipiac University national poll released today. By a similar 57 – 37 percent margin, voters say health care reform should be dropped if it adds “significantly” to the deficit.

By a 72 – 21 percent margin, voters do not believe that President Barack Obama will keep his promise to overhaul the health care system without adding to the deficit, the independent Quinnipiac (KWIN-uh-pe-ack) University national poll finds.

American voters disapprove 52 – 39 percent of the way President Obama is handling health care, down from 46 – 42 percent approval July 1, with 60 – 34 percent disapproval from independent voters. Voters say 59 – 36 percent that Congress should not pass health care reform if only Democratic members support it.

Voters oppose 68 – 26 percent requiring people to have health insurance or pay a fine and oppose 68 – 27 percent taxing employees for health care benefits from employers.

But yet, they continue on. because the Agenda is the Agenda. Damn the facts and the people, full speed ahead.

After emerging from a closed-door Democrats-only White House meeting with Senate Democrats Tuesday, President Obama said: “We are on the precipice of an achievement that’s eluded Congresses and presidents for generations, an achievement that will touch the lives of nearly every American.”

Reach out and touch everyone, comrade.

Neville Chamberlain in 1938 disembarked from his plane and told the crowd, “This morning, I had another talk with the German chancellor, Herr Hitler, and here is the paper which bears his name upon it, as well as mine.” Forever, he will be remembered for waving his worthless “piece of paper.”

President Bill Clinton a decade ago told the grand jury investigating whether he committed perjury that “it depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is.” Forever, he will be remembered for twisting language into pretzels to avoid the truth.

President Jimmy Carter in his infamous 1979 “Malaise Speech” blamed Americans for a national “crisis of confidence” and “loss of a unity of purpose for our nation.” Carter’s solution: Carpool and “set your thermostats to save fuel. … I tell you it is an act of patriotism.”

Much of what the president said in his Tuesday statement was patently false. With its heavy regulations, the Senate bill, even stripped of its destructive “public option,” won’t mean that “families will save on their premiums.” Independent studies make it clear that premiums will go up by thousands of dollars.

It also isn’t true that “this will be the largest deficit-reduction plan in over a decade” — and to hear such a promise from the biggest-spending president in his first year in office in history is hard to take.

The president claims “the CBO has said that this is a deficit reduction.” But as Sen. Robert Bennett, R-Utah, who sits on both the appropriations and banking committees, recently told Fox News’ Neil Cavuto, the definition of “deficit-neutral” that Democrats have been using “means it’s going to cost you over $1 trillion, and we are going to find $1 trillion either in Medicare cuts or increased taxes, so that we end up with the same number at the bottom line.”

Speaking of the Congressional Budget Office, after candidate Obama last year promised a $2,500 annual reduction in health premiums annually for average families, the CBO has warned of premium increases of about $5,000 a year.

“Precipice” is right, Mr. President. But with public support at 41% according to IBD/TIPP and 35% according to Gallup — not to mention two-thirds of doctors opposed to Congress’ plan, as IBD/TIPP also found — most Americans clearly don’t want to take a plunge like this.(IBD)

And if they challenge you, just ignore them, call security, have them removed, just go to people who will kiss your ass and not challenge you, or simply just ignore them all together.

After all, they don’t matter.

You’re way more important and so is your Agenda.

That's a Big Bird.

Sleep tight, don’t let the tax bugs bite… 🙂