Unbelievably STUPID!!

Alrighty then ... Obama and his entourage of incompetents (and incompetence, too) continue to put the blame for the current financial condition of the USA on Gee Dubbya, in spite of the fact that the liberal Democrats have controlled Congress since 2006. What's that got to do with it? Y'all take notes now ...

1. Control of Congress means they also controlled the pursestrings of the government.
2. The government insisted that Fannie May, Freddie Mac and other lenders make home loans to people who did not meet the established standards that insured the ability to repay the loans.
3. George Bush started warning people about the foreseeable recession in 2001, specifically asking for better controls on Fanny and Freddie. John McCain made a similar speech on the floor of the Senate in 2003.
4. Liberal Dems Barney Franks and Chuck Schumer denied there were any problems with the GFE's Fanny and Freddie.
5. In 2008, thanks to the Dimocrats resistance to doing the right thing, the financial house of cards began crumbling.

And the fat lady ain't sung yet, folks! I predicted a recession well over a year ago, but I wasn't blogging then, so only family and a few close friends might remember it. We've been in that recession for about a year now, although the government wouldn't admit it (because of a semantic technicality) until just a few months ago.

Obama lacks the courage to admit where and how the problem began, and - as any good politician (isn't that an oxymoron) would - he blames the other party and the previous administration for his partys refusal to cooperate in resolving the problem before it reached gargantuan proportions.

Are there those in the Pork Palace (House and Senate) who still want what's best for the country, as opposed to what's best for them? I doubt that any elected official at the Federal level would be voted out of office, or run out of town on a rail, for doing what was in the best interests of the UNITED STATES, as opposed to what's best for Califlorisotazona.
1. Almost 600,000 jobs were lost in the USA in January 2009.
2. Wall Street has shown how much they believe in Obama-as-Messiah by floundering for the last 2 months.
3. Illegal aliens have actually begun voluntarily returning to Mexico (which is not a bad thing) because the job market is in such bad shape in this country and the cost of living keeps going up on a weekly basis.
4. Socialism has reared its ugly head, and it is revered by those who would rather nurse at the government teat than work for a living and support themselves! Apparently, based on the recent election results, they are in the majority these days.
5. Those who supported Obama will be repaid by getting "tax refund checks" on taxes they never paid! (That is called "welfare", right?) Too many grasshoppers and not enough ants ...

The government is about to stick its nose into our medical records through an act of "benevolence" ... bring socialized medicine to the USA. Yet another failed systematized process, as proven by 95% of the countries that have tried it. It does provide everybody with medical care. Unfortunately - for many in the system - it will not provide any post-mortem benefits, of which they may become in need while waiting their turn for medical care.

Change simply for change sake is ridiculous! What kinds of morons have we permitted to reproduce during the last generation or two, that would vote a socialist leader into office? If we do not, collectively, wake up before it's too late, and demand that our government be responsive to the will of the people, and serve us as they were elected to do, we will never recover from the plague of social, moral, philosophical, and financial ills of the Obama administration.

I could be wrong about this ... but I'm NOT!

Have You Wondered Why ...

Have you wondered why "our" President has had his "public records" placed under lock and key. Records like his birth certificate and his college transcripts? I have to wonder why, if they are indeed legitimate, official and accurate records of his birth and educational achievements, they are not available to the public, the press, or the Federal Judiciary?

The normal assumption, whenever public records have been hidden away from the public, is that there is something extremely embarrassing or extremely detrimental to the well-being of the individual to whom those records belong. The average person cannot have (otherwise public) personal records classified. Supposedly our medical and mental health records (see the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act [HIPAA] to find out just how "confidential" your medical records are ... NOT) are confidential, as are the records of our attorneys, and counseling sessions with clergy ... the key word here being "Supposedly". Arrest and conviction records are even available as public records! So if somebody is hiding otherwise "public" records, perhaps the information contained therein is more damning than an arrest and conviction record. Now I have to wonder what types of information could be more damning or embarrassing than arrest/conviction records? This is a question of such volume that it almost supplants the really big question of: "How could the majority of Americans - both living and dead - have voted a man who has so few concrete qualifications, and so many unanswered questions about his origins and financial backers into the most important office in the country?"

What is Mr. Obabma hiding from the people of this country? What does he fear we would discern from those records should they be made available to us? Why is he appointing tax evaders to cabinet-level positions - especially to head the IRS? Could it be that he knows no honest people to appoint to those positions? After all, he DID come out of the most corrupt political machine in the country. He has close associations with anti-American terrorists - both physical (William Ayers) and psychological (Rev. Wright) - and shady financial dealings with others (Tony Rezko). This is the man the morons of the United States of America elected as President!

Of course, I could be wrong about this ... but I'm NOT!

Latest Headline: US Turned Blind Eye to Somalia Abuses

Whine, whine, whine ... perhaps the eye that was used was the same one the Somali's in the capital city of Mogadishu poked their fingers into on October 3rd, 1993, when they killed 18 American soldiers and wounded 73. American soldiers who were there on a mission of mercy! Deployed to bring food to starving Somalis, they were greeted with hostility and small arms fire.

But simply killing the Americans wasn't enough. These savages felt motivated to dismember and burn the bodies of these dead and dying American samaritans ... after which they dragged the bodies through the streets of Mogadishu in a triumphant display of hatred for the United States. And the U.S. based Human Rights Watch accuses the United States of "turning a blind eye to rampant abuses by the Ethiopian and transitional government forces." Are these people so ignorant as to be incapable of understanding where our lack of interest in Somali internal affairs could come from?

Somalia could disappear from the face of the Earth today, and I wouldn't miss it. If Somalia were to slide into the ocean it would also put an end to the piracy in the high seas off Somalia. Somalia is a wart on the derriere of this planet.

I could be wrong about this ... but I'm not!

Okay ... Here's The Deal ... All You Ignorant Ragheads Pay Attention!

If you are dumb enough to allow cowardly terrorists/militants/insurgents/freedom-fighters to hide themselves and their weapons caches in your cities, amongst your civilian population, don't run whining to the International left-wing media when you incur civilian casualties. It makes you look like a bunch of morons! It's what's called "collateral damage", and you better get used to it ... unless you decide to have your military eliminate the terrorists hiding within the confines of your country. Israel, and the Western nations embroiled in the Middle East conflicts, have shown restraint well beyond that which could be expected by reasonable human beings. They have held back to the point where the lives of their own people were placed in even greater jeopardy.

If a school, hospital, or mosque is used as a staging area from which to launch an attack against a military force, expect that school, hospital, or mosque to receive incoming fire from those whom you have attacked. Such retaliation should not come as a surprise to you. This is how war works ... if you try to kill me and are unsuccessful, then it's my turn! If you have fired on me from one of those places don't expect me to be shooting off into a nearby forest, or the desert. My job is to eliminate the immediate threat to my physical well-being, and the well-being of my comrades. I will concentrate my return fire upon those areas from whence hostile fire originated.

And, for all you whiny media morons and politicians ... understand that armed combat is not a precise science, and even the smartest of the so-called "smart bombs" cannot differentiate between a terrorist and an innocent. If a soldier is fired upon from "building X" then anything that moves within "building X" becomes a target. If you want to place blame, then place it where it belongs - on the cowards who chose to launch their attacks from within those buildings - buildings that are normally not considered as targets.

I could be wrong about this ... but I'm NOT!

Obama Orders Closure of Guantanamo

There's no surprise in that, as any good left-wing, bleeding-heart, socialist liberal will tell you. But, that's not the end of it, OH NO! He also wants to bring those that are not released into the United States, give them all the benefits of our constitution, try them in civilian courts, and provide them with civilian attorneys!

Here's what's wrong with those ideas:

1. Personally (and I know all the Constitutional Law scholars would disagree with me), I don't believe that anybody who is not a citizen of this country should be entitled to the protections guaranteed by our constitution. I'm a bit flexible on that belief if somebody can show me a rational argument indicating that I'm wrong. So far though, nobody has.

2. Bringing them into this country gets them closer to their desired targets - Americans!
3. Trying them in civilian courts is absolutely ridiculous. These people are not peaceful demonstrators, they are enemy combatants detained by the US military as a result of, in many cases, armed, confrontations with US military forces. These cowards are not civilians, nor are they uniformed military, nor do they represent the publicly stated policies of any sovereign nation's government. What they are is organized armed thugs wishing to do physical harm of a terminal nature to all Westerners, and anybody else that does not believe exactly as they do! They hide among the civilian populations of the Middle East, attack from within those populations, and then when we respond to those attacks, they whine to the global left-wing media about Western forces injuring civilians. They are prisoners of war and, as such, they should be outside the purview of civilian courts, and subject to trial only by military tribunal. Never in the history of the world have run-of-the-mill prisoners of war been tried in civilian courts, why should we begin now?
4. Providing them with civilian attorneys is equally ridiculous, for the above reasons, PLUS the expense of their defense would be paid for by our tax dollars! On the other hand, perhaps all those good, left-wing, ACLU attorneys will provide their services pro bono ... but don't hold your breath while waiting for that to happen! Obama has already told us that he wants a national budget in the TRILLIONS of dollars, to bring his socialist give-away agenda to fruition. I sense that smug feeling of victory will soon disappear from those Americans who were so emotionally overwhelmed at Obama's election to the highest office in the land. It's called the Peter Principle ...

I could be wrong ... but, I'm NOT!

Sarah Palin - Perhaps No Pro, But No Con Either

Sarah Palin is now a household name, yet prior to her selection as the John McCain's Vice Presidential running mate she was virtually unknown outside the state of Alaska. Sarah, as she prefers to be called, may not be a professional politician - which to my way of thinking is a good thing - but she doesn't try to con the American people, either. She presents herself in a WYSIWYG manner, without the typical political smoke and mirrors and sleight of hand. Sarah is guilty ... of being an American in the first degree!

This typical American daughter/mother/wife moved up the political ladder more because of her plain-spoken believability than in spite of it. Sarah is easy to look at, and appears to be at ease in her surroundings, whether they be a coffee shop in Wasilla, Alaska or the floor of the Republican National Convention. Unlike most professional politicians, Sarah Palin rings true.

Her background is not that different from most Americans. She comes from a working-class family, attended public schools, graduated from Wasilla High and the University of Idaho fer cryin' out loud! Sarah's background - prior to her election to the internationally powerful Wasilla City Council - is neither a politcal one nor a monied one. She didn't attend Harvard, Yale, or Brown Universities ... she went to a university that would probably even accept me! Sara Palin is one of us.

And that is precisely why the elitist media snobs chose to make light of her exhibited qualifications. Sarah isn't one of them, and that scares the hell out of the liberal left. She doesn't think, talk or shoot fancy - just straight from the hip. Sarah has more executive-level experience than our incoming President, brought new energy and excitement to McCain's hobbling campaign, and created hope amongst the leadership of the RNC that they might actually be able to salvage the country from the grip of left-wing socialists. Almost overnight, she rejuvenated the conservative body of America. Unfortunately, conservative America - once again - turned out to be the too silent majority. Conservative complacency, and an increased number of liberal judges legislating from the bench, will be the downfall of these United States.

So ... what's not to like about Sarah Palin? All of her positive qualities ... if you're a left-wing bleeding heart liberal! I believe we've just seen beginning of Sarah Palin at the national level. If nothing else, her short VP nominee gig did one thing for her. Of the potential Republican Presidential candidates for 2012, Sarah Palin now has the most recognized name in the Republican Party!

I could be wrong about his ... but I'm NOT!

Palestine Homeland Stolen by Israel? Not According to History!

It annoys me when people ignore - or worse, pervert - historical data to justify their own position. Everybody seems to overlook the fact that the Kingdom of Israel and the Kingdom of Judah were taken from the Jews by the Romans as retribution for the "Great Revolt" in 66AD (or 66CE [Common Era] as the PC folks now identify it).

The Romans first occupied Israel in 63BC (or 66BCE) at which time there was no "Palestine". At the beginning of the Common Era, a new group arose among the Jews: the Zealots. These anti-Roman rebels were active for more than six decades, and later instigated the Great Revolt. Their most basic belief was that all means were justified to attain political and religious liberty.

The Jews' anti-Roman feelings were seriously exacerbated during the reign of the half-crazed emperor Caligula, who in the year 39 declared himself to be a deity and ordered his statue to be set up at every temple in the Roman Empire. The Jews, alone in the empire, refused the command; they would not defile God's Temple with a statue of pagan Rome's newest deity. Only the emperor's sudden, violent death saved the Jews from wholesale massacre.

In the decades after Caligula's death, Jews found their religion subject to periodic gross indignities, Roman soldiers exposing themselves in the Temple on one occasion, and burning a Torah scroll on another.

In the year 66, Florus, the last Roman procurator, stole vast quantities of silver from the Temple. The outraged Jewish masses rioted and wiped out the small Roman garrison stationed in Jerusalem. Cestius Gallus, the Roman ruler in neighboring Syria, sent in a larger force of soldiers. But the Jewish insurgents routed them as well.

This was a heartening victory that had a terrible consequence: Many Jews suddenly became convinced that they could defeat Rome, and the Zealots' ranks grew geometrically. Never again, however, did the Jews achieve so decisive a victory.

When the Romans returned, they had 60,000 heavily armed and highly professional troops. They launched their first attack against the Jewish state's most radicalized area, the Galilee in the north. The Romans vanquished the Galilee, and an estimated 100,000 Jews were killed or sold into slavery.

During the summer of 70, the Romans breached the walls of Jerusalem, and initiated an orgy of violence and destruction. Shortly thereafter, they destroyed the Second Temple. This was the final and most devastating Roman blow against Judea. It is estimated that as many as one million Jews died in the Great Revolt against Rome. When people today speak of the almost two-thousand-year span of Jewish homelessness and exile, they are dating it from the failure of the revolt and the destruction of the Temple

After Rome destroyed Jerusalem and the Second Temple in 70, the Great Revolt ended - except for the surviving Zealots, who fled Jerusalem to the fortress of Masada, near the Dead Sea. There, they held out for three years. Masada is situated on top of an enormous, isolated rock: Anyone climbing it to attack the fortress would be an easy target. Yet the Jews, encamped in the fortress, could never feel secure; every morning, they awoke to see the Roman Tenth Legion hard at work, constructing battering rams and other weapons. If the 960 defenders of Masada hoped that the Romans eventually would consider this last Jewish beachhead too insignificant to bother conquering, they were to be disappointed. The Romans were well aware that the Zealots at Masada were the group that had started the Great Revolt; in fact, the Zealots had been in revolt against the Romans since the year 6. More than anything else, the length and bitterness of their uprising probably account for Rome's unwillingness to let Masada and its small group of defiant Jews alone.

The Zealots were Jewish extremists, even the Jews recognize that. The Kingdoms of Israel and Judah had existed for about 1,000 years before the Roman Emperor, Hadrian, partitioned it around 135AD and renamed the land that was Israel and Judea "Syria Palaestina".

In 1922, the League of Nations recognized the "historical connection of the Jewish people with Palestine" and the "grounds for reconstituting their national home in that country", the 28 Articles of the Mandate for Mesopotamia, Syria and Palestine were ratified, and Israel was rightfully re-established - at least in a technical and legal sense.

His Britannic Majesty, King George V, was nominated for and accepted the function of, the Mandatory for Palestine. That mandate continued until 1947, when Israel was recognized by the United Nations as a sovereign entity. However, "the Lord giveth, and the Lord taketh away" ... the U.N. Partition Plan also gave most of what once was Judah to an Arab State.

Following the time line, it is fairly obvious that the Jews, established by the year 1004BC/BCE, had their homelands seized and redistributed by the Romans in 135AD/CE, and that prior to that time there was no Palestine. The Palestinians should stop their whining and their terroristic acts, accept the fact that Israel does exist as a legitimately recognized Nation State, and concentrate their energies on living in peace with their neighbors.

I won't argue with history, however keep in mind that history is written by the victors. I could be wrong in how I see this ... but I'm NOT!

Israeli Shells Kill 42 at UN School - Hamas Cowards Hide

"GAZA (Reuters) – Israeli shelling killed more than 40 Palestinians on Tuesday at a U.N. school where civilians had taken shelter, medical officials said ..." and, of course, the liberal media is blaming Israel for the collateral damage in its retaliation against Hamas rocket attacks on Israel.

Why is it that the international press - collectively - choose to defend the wrong side in almost every encounter between the forces of good and evil? Hamas continues to provoke Israel, at every opportunity and, personally, I'm tiring of the whiny liberal media implying (when not simply stating outright) that Israel is the bad guy here! This is the same, warped, left-wing reasoning they used when they implied that the US was the initiator of the September 11th, 2001 attacks on the World Trade Center! Where is the international outrage over Robert Mugabe's tyrannical rule of Zimbabwe, which he retains against the expressed will of the Zimbabwean people? Where is the hue and cry over Hamas' rocket attacks and homicide bombings against Israel? I use the word "homicide" as opposed to the PC word, "suicide", because if the Hamas Muslim cowards could get away with it they would not sacrifice their own lives to kill anybody. And I use the word "cowards" because they do not wear uniforms so they may blend in with, and hide - like the yellow dogs they are - within the civilian population. That is the root cause of all collateral damage in Gaza! Any moral government will go to extreme lengths to avoid inflicting civilian casualties, and extreme means withholding the full power of their military to the point that their own people's lives are placed in even greater danger. The cowards of Hamas know this, and use it to their advantage. There comes a point at which any sovereign government being attacked by terrorists must say "ENOUGH!", or be ready to forfeit their sovereignty. And, when it comes down to "fight or flight", the Israelis are totally unfamiliar with the "flight" portion.

Since Israel withdrew from Gaza in 2005, there have been over 5,000 rocket and mortar attacks launched into Israel by Hamas, with the year 2008 accounting for a full 50% of those attacks. The time for ENOUGH has arrived, and Hamas is now paying the price for their continued terrorist aggression. I doubt that you'll see these statistics in the media - print or broadcast - so here they are:

(The spelling of "mortar" is not mine - it belongs to the Israeli government. I'm certain they can count much better than they spell in English! I can't do either in Hebrew.)

I could be wrong about this ... but I'm NOT!

Political Plums Being Harvested Already - Leon Panetta To Head CIA ... Was Sean Penn Unavailable?

"WASHINGTON (Reuters) – President-elect Barack Obama has chosen former White House chief of staff Leon Panetta to lead the CIA, which has been widely criticized for harsh interrogation of terrorism suspects..."

I don't know who to feel the most sorry for - Obama for his stupid choice for CIA Director; Panetta for being so far out of his element; or the American people ... for having to suffer a fool in either office! Kiefer Sutherland, based on his "experience" as Agent Jack Bauer in the TV show 24, probably knows more about the internal operations of the CIA than does Leon Panetta. Panetta is best known as President Bill "Zipper" Clinton's Chief of Staff, and as a budget expert who tamed deficits in the Clinton White House. I'm confused ... how do either of these positions - or anything else in Panetta's résumé - qualify him him to oversee the largest single intelligence function of the United States Government?

So far, it appears that not only do we get a President with no proven qualifications, now he has shown himself to be foolish enough to surround himself with equally unqualified cabinet members. Or, does his Cabinet provide a buffer zone of deniability, selected by careful design to insulate Obama from policy failures? Is there more treachery afoot than meets the eye?

Obama's first really big mistake will be to turn his back on Israel. I could be wrong ... but I'm NOT!

Obama Not A Native Born American? That Would Mean ...

I've been following this situation for quite some time now, and must believe the old saw "Where there's smoke, there's fire." There have been numerous lawsuits filed in various Federal Courts, , including one by a former Pennsylvania State Attorney General, claiming that Barack Hussein Obama is not a native-born American citizen. What does that mean in practical terms?

It means that if he is allowed to take office before providing proof of his eligibility, he may have violated the Constitution, which requires that the Office of the President be filled only by native-born Americans. Technically, if he is not truly an American citizen by birth, he cannot even run for the office, much less be elected to it! Such evidence has been requested several times over the past 6 months, but Obama has steadfastly refused to provide any official documentation. If he has nothing to hide, then why hide it? There are also questions surrounding many of his unidentified campaign contributors ... those of the non-American variety, living outside the fifty United States.

Suppose Obama isn't a native-born American, and is therefore disqualified from the election. What would that mean in practical terms? It's never happened before in the history of the United States, so I'm not certain. Would Joe Biden become President? He wasn't the one elected, and Obama isn't incapacitated or unable to fulfill the duties of the office. Obama wasn't eligible for the office in the first place! Would John McCain become President? No - even though he had the next highest number of votes for that office. The Constitution hands the office to the Vice President.

On a different level, what would Obama being declared ineligible mean in social and emotional terms? Nationwide social unrest would begin at the moment of the announcement, followed immediately - if not simultaneously - by coast-to-coast race riots. Black Americans would "know" intuitively that it was "just another way for Whitey to keep the black man down." And, would such a belief be difficult to understand? Not at all, given the history of the treatment of the black race, not just in the USA, but around the world. Anybody should be able to understand their disappointment and disillusionment at such a situation. But understanding won't absolve them of their responsibility to obey the laws prohibiting behaviors that jeopardize the lives and property of others.

Perhaps, even though Obama may not be qualified for the office on several levels, the thing to do is ignore the Constitution! Congress does it all the time for lesser reasons, why not do it to insure the public safety? Or ignore it at least until the liberals and Muslims have the opportunity to impose Sharia Law.

I could be wrong ... but I'm NOT! BIDEN IN '09!