Auto Industry spanked by Obama

In what Yahoo news describes as an "unprecedented move", Obama flat our rejected the turnaround plans submitted by GE and Chrysler, "demanding fresh concessions for long-term federal aid and raising the possibility of quick bankruptcy for either ailing auto giant".

Automaker CEO Barrack Obama...Wait...No...I'm sorry, I got confused. Obama already fired GM's CEO...So I guess that would make it...Got it. Automaker CEO Super-Ultra-MEGA-CEO Obama said today that "our auto industry is not moving in the right direction fast enough to succeed". Drawing on his many decades years weeks minutes of experience in the auto industry, Obama gave GM 60 days worth of operational cash, and Chrysler 30 days.

Remember folks: We are NOT moving towards Socialism. Don't let those right wing crazies fool you. Comrade...I mean...President Obama wouldn't do that to us, the people! After all, we've only moved from injecting a little cash into a business (which we've been doing for years, after all) to hiring and firing CEOs and dictating business plans. No big deal.

In a completely unrelated story, this was written shortly after Obama was anointed leader of the galaxy: "A friend of labor and its allies sit in the White House...He's expressed support for higher fuel efficiency standards for motor vehicles...The only answer is through massive injections of money from the federal government into the economy, into the hands of people who will spend it."

Who wrote it, you ask? That would be Samuel Webb, National Chairperson for the Communist Party of America.

UPDATE: GM is going to replace a majority of the members of their Board of Directors. The Administration is going to play a "key role" in choosing these new members. Call me crazy, but that sounds just a tiny bit frightening to me.

Archie Bunker on Gun Control

Remember that show "All in the Family"? The main character, Archie Bunker, was a right wing bigot. He believed he treated everyone fairly...Which he did, in his own way. Despite his failings, though, he did occasionally have some good old fashioned common sense to give out to his liberal bum son-in-law. Here's one memorable scene where Archie is shown on TV, giving his opinion on gun control.




"What's the first thing the Communists done when they take over Russia? Gun Control."

Absolutely true. Check out this article by Dave Kopel.

"If it was up to me, I could end the skyjackings tomorrow. All you gotta do is arm all your passengers...Skyjacker ain't got no superiority there, he ain't gonna dare pull out no rod....Just pass out the pistols at the beginning of the trip, and get them back on the way out. Case closed."

Priceless.

Exit question: Why are there drive-bys in London? Answer: Criminal = Law breaker. Gun Control = Law. Therefore, Gun Control + Criminal = Armed criminals. Armed Criminals + disarmed populace = Bad News Bears.

AIG VP To AIG CEO: Go *$&# yourself.

The NY Times (you know, that non-profit newspaper) reported on a letter sent "by Jake DeSantis, an executive vice president of the American International Group’s financial products unit, to Edward M. Liddy, the chief executive of A.I.G." While the title of my post deftly sums it up as only I can, there is a little bit more to it. Follow the link to read it in its entirety. Its not too terribly long. Here's some excerpts:

"I am proud of everything I have done for the commodity and equity divisions of A.I.G.-F.P. I was in no way involved in — or responsible for — the credit default swap transactions that have hamstrung A.I.G. Nor were more than a handful of the 400 current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. Most of those responsible have left the company and have conspicuously escaped the public outrage.

After 12 months of hard work dismantling the company — during which A.I.G. reassured us many times we would be rewarded in March 2009 — we in the financial products unit have been betrayed by A.I.G. and are being unfairly persecuted by elected officials. In response to this, I will now leave the company and donate my entire post-tax retention payment to those suffering from the global economic downturn. My intent is to keep none of the money myself."

He then cuts to the mistake the CEO made, namely throwing his employees under the bus.

"At no time during the past six months that you have been leading A.I.G. did you ask us to revise, renegotiate or break these contracts — until several hours before your appearance last week before Congress.

I think your initial decision to honor the contracts was both ethical and financially astute, but it seems to have been politically unwise. It’s now apparent that you either misunderstood the agreements that you had made — tacit or otherwise — with the Federal Reserve, the Treasury, various members of Congress and Attorney General Andrew Cuomo of New York, or were not strong enough to withstand the shifting political winds.

You’ve now asked the current employees of A.I.G.-F.P. to repay these earnings. As you can imagine, there has been a tremendous amount of serious thought and heated discussion about how we should respond to this breach of trust.

As most of us have done nothing wrong, guilt is not a motivation to surrender our earnings. We have worked 12 long months under these contracts and now deserve to be paid as promised. None of us should be cheated of our payments any more than a plumber should be cheated after he has fixed the pipes but a careless electrician causes a fire that burns down the house. "

He couldn't be more right. Regardless of how the company has performed, there is no reason to vilify these employees.

"So what am I to do? There’s no easy answer. I know that because of hard work I have benefited more than most during the economic boom and have saved enough that my family is unlikely to suffer devastating losses during the current bust. Some might argue that members of my profession have been overpaid, and I wouldn’t disagree."

Let's stop and remember this is one of those ultra-greedy Capitalists, the elite who can only rise by crushing those below them. So, he's going to decide to increase his financial empire using these ill-gotten gains...Isn't he?

"That is why I have decided to donate 100 percent of the effective after-tax proceeds of my retention payment directly to organizations that are helping people who are suffering from the global downturn. This is not a tax-deduction gimmick; I simply believe that I at least deserve to dictate how my earnings are spent, and do not want to see them disappear back into the obscurity of A.I.G.’s or the federal government’s budget. Our earnings have caused such a distraction for so many from the more pressing issues our country faces, and I would like to see my share of it benefit those truly in need.

On March 16 I received a payment from A.I.G. amounting to $742,006.40, after taxes. In light of the uncertainty over the ultimate taxation and legal status of this payment, the actual amount I donate may be less — in fact, it may end up being far less if the recent House bill raising the tax on the retention payments to 90 percent stands. Once all the money is donated, you will immediately receive a list of all recipients. "

I get the impression this guy is saying what the other 70 employees are all thinking. "Why should I have to give my money back? I followed the contract. I did my job." He then follows all that up by doing something good: Donating the cash to charity.

Before we whip ourselves into a populist frenzy, we should read this and remember: Being rich doesn't make you good, or evil. It just makes you rich.

Weekly approval rating: 37%

It seems that, despite my best efforts, a pattern has emerged with these rating posts. Since they are naturally gravitating towards Fridays, I'm going to cave in and start making that the day of the post from here on out...Until I forget. Or get busy. Or bored. Or whatever.

So, on to the rating! Let's start things off positive...

#1: Obama comes out against 90% executive tax. During a 60 minutes interview the President was asked if he believed the House Bill (which I discussed in a previous blog) was constitutional. (Side note: Here's an interesting WSJ article about this very question.) His response:

"Well, I think that as a general proposition, you don't wanna be passing laws that are just targeting a handful of individuals. You wanna pass laws that have some broad applicability. And as a general proposition, I think you certainly don't wanna use the tax code to punish people. I think that you've got an pretty egregious situation here that people are understandably upset about. And so let's see if there are ways of doing this that are both legal, that are constitutional, that upholds our basic principles of fairness, but don't hamper us from getting the banking system back on track." (emphasis mine)

While the statement against was not terribly strong, it was definitely against it. Okay, so he did tell Secretary Geithner to take the bonus money out of the next installment of bailouts to go to AIG. Okay, so he still thinks the situation is 'egregious'. Nevertheless, he does realize that in this one instance the tax code should not be used as a bludgeon (belief in the other facets of our punitive tax code notwithstanding). For this tentative position, he will go up 2% in my book. (If the House bill should ever make it to his desk, which I doubt, he stands to gain a bit more if he veto's it.)

#2: Hey you! It's not a GWOT anymore! It appears the administration is trying to move away from the label "Global War on Terror", and instead prefers the term "Overseas Contingency Operation", according to Fox news. Don't get me wrong, I'm not exactly in love with GWOT. Really, it wouldn't have mattered to me what they called it (Though OCO doesn't roll off the toungue so well). Its been fine till now, what's the big deal?

But if you have to change it, if you absolutely must move away from that term, can you go with something a bit more manly? "Overseas Contingency" sounds less like "Let's go overseas and blow those bastards up!" and more like "If we happen to be traveling overseas, and we lose our man purse, what's our contingency plan?" Why don't we go ahead and make our mascot a bunch of frolicking kittens while we're at it?

Come on, fellas. Let's at least try to pretend we've got some cajones. He loses 1% for not being able to cowboy up.

So, these two things leave Obama with a net gain of 1%, leaving him at 37% for the week. Not a big news week for the guy, but hey, apparently laying low works well for him.

At this rate, he'll be back at 100% in no time!

Avon exposed: Coverup for Umbrella?

We knew this was coming. They called us crazy. They said that zombies didn't exist. They said we were nuts for reading the Survival Guide, for studying educational films (Dawn of the Dead, Zombie Diaries, etc.). They said we were looney while we discussed assault rifles vs. sniper rifles, bats vs. swords. The time for them to eat their words is now.

We have proof positive that Avon, popular cosmetics company, is actually a front organization for the notorious Umbrella Corporation. First, check out Umbrella's advertisement for the T-virus. (Thanks to i09 for the story.)



Now look at Avon's advertisement for their new "Derma-Full" product.



Side effects: Nausea, headaches, and an unquenchable lust for human flesh!

Obama backs down, & a new rating (36%)

The Washington Post reports that Obama has agreed to drop the issue of Veteran's paying for their own combat related injuries with private insurance. This is a story that has caused a tremendous amount of anger among the people I know, yet has made almost no ripple in the mass media that I can find.

I'm glad that our Commander in Chief has decided that forcing veterans to pay for injuries sustained in combat would be bad. What I'm not glad about is that it took this much effort to make him see that. Here's a few facts that I would have thought would've been obvious from the get go.

1) It would destroy retention. As it stands now, if you walk into MEPs and raise your right hand you are essentially agreeing to be sent into combat. That is the reality as it stands now. Thanks to the mistreatment of the armed forces that has been going on for years, recruitment and retention is very low. How many people will be lining up to join if they know that when they get sent to combat they could come back with healthcare costs that will haunt them for the rest of their lives?

2) Morale and order in the forces would be destroyed. If this measure had passed it would have caused chaos, both here and abroad. You'd have troops refusing to serve when called to deploy. You would have deployed soldiers refusing to leave the wire, not confident they will be taken care of if they were hurt. My mind cannot even begin to grasp the damage this would do to our fighting capabilities.

3) It's a political NIGHTMARE. Even if you don't care one bit about troop welfare or our ability to win a war. Even if you think the money we'd save would be totally worth it, how could you as a politician not see that this would've been political suicide? It's a complete no brainer. There are tons of people willing to decry the war(s), but very few Americans, much less politicians, are willing to come out against the military itself. Thankfully we learned a little bit from Vietnam here.

Obama did eventually come to his senses. For that, he'll get a +3% rating boost. That still leaves him net -7% for the whole affair, but I'm leaving that in place because this position should never have made it past an inner-office conference call, much less the newspapers. That it didn't shows either a tremendous lack of respect and concern for the American fighting man, or an even more ginormous lack of foresight and judgement. That puts his rating at 36% for now.

Thomas Paine speaks from the grave

You can put away the high powered rifle. This is not a warning of the upcoming zombie invasion (that's next post). This is actually a fella dressed up like the author of Common Sense (You can read up a bit on the real Thomas Paine, if you are as lacking in American historical knowledge as I was). The video is just over six minutes long, and is pretty entertaining.

It's called the "We the People Stimulus Package", and berates the viewer (meant to be the general American populace) for standing idly by while Congress has gone power mad. He touches on a variety of issues, from not allowing our "Non-representing Representatives" to vote themselves raises, to term limits, to my personal favorite "Throw them all out" (Them being everyone who voted for the largest spending bill in American history without bothering to read it).



I don't agree with everything he suggests. For instance, I'm not convinced compulsory service is the way to go. I'm not totally convinced we should abolish the electoral college (though I probably wouldn't shed any tears at its passing either). The complaint he has against Congress' pension plan is valid, but his information isn't accurate. You can read up on it here. Basically, they get pensions based on their length of service, but the lowest listed in the article is $14,165/year for just six years service (If only I could qualify for that kind of package). Of course, that pension doesn't take into account any of the other perks they get, which are legion. The President's name is misspelled as "Barak" at the very end.

Finally, the idea of sending tea bags to Washington is cute, but impractical. Not one of them will ever get through to any Congressman's office. They'll be intercepted and destroyed at the Post Office. Still, if the Post Office is bogged down with tons of little paper tea bags, it could still make the news and make a statement.

All of my critiques aside it is a very passionately delivered speech, and lays the blame for the excesses of government right where it belongs: The lazy American voter. Wake up, America, else you may one day rise to note that you have been enslaved.

Defending the AIG bonuses

Fire and flames continue to eat at AIG, and things only appear to be getting worse. Here we have a mammoth company who is losing money at enormous rates, and was nearing the verge of collapse. In fact, last quarter they posted a loss of $61.7 billion. The government, declaring them too big to fail, has bailed them out. The company has received more than $170 billion so far.

The latest scandal to nail the company concerns $165 million in bonuses they recently paid to 73 employees. Politicians on the right and left are busy faking expressing affected passionate outrage over this atrocity. Sen Grassley (R-IA) suggested that they either "resign or commit suicide", after the Japanese fashion. Majority leader Harry Reid boldly proclaimed "Recipients of these bonuses will not be able to keep all of their money". Sen Chuck Schumer (D-NY) quickly followed up with "If you don't return it on your own, we will do it for you". Many in Congress have suggested anywhere between a 80% and 100% on this bonus money in order to return it to the taxpayer.

I will now...Hold on a second...*dons his flame resistant Nomex flightsuit for protection*...There. I will now enter the fray and come out in support of the AIG bonuses. More precisely, I support their right to hand them out. How could I support these excesses paid by a company that was bailed out on the taxpayer dime? I'm glad you asked.

Take a walk with me.

Yes I'll wait for you to tie your shoes.

No, we can't stop for ice cream. Now then:

1) AIG was contractually obligated to pay out the bonuses. The bonuses that are being referred to are actually retention bonuses that were agreed to in 2008, before the bailout business had started, and based on the earnings of 2007. I say again: AIG is contractually obligated to pay out these bonuses. AIG writes contracts for much of it's living. Imagine the bad reputation they might get in the contracting business if they disregard contracts when they become inconvenient.

2) The language of the bailout protects these bonuses specifically. You know, the bill that congress didn't have time to read? It specifically states that these bonuses should be allowed. Interesting...Chris Dodd, who initially was just as "outraged" at the bonuses as every other Congressman, is actually the person responsible for the very language that allows them. To not give these bonuses out would not only break AIG's contracts, then, but the government's as well. Not a good reputation for the US government to have, since our treasury notes (you know, the one China is buying to finance our operations) are really just fancy contracts. After all, Congress has such an impressive record for honest, transparent, and reliable dealings. We wouldn't want that impugned, now would we?

3) The executives just might have actually earned them. AIG is "too big to fail", remember? They are also too big to have just one division. While the part of AIG that has been hemorraghing cash faster than a socialite in a shoe store is the one everyone is focused on, there are other portions of the company that are actually turning profits. I am not saying that each and every one of the recipients of said "bonuses" (which is a bit misleading, since these "bonuses" actually make up a substantial portion of their compensation) deserved them, per se. What I am saying is that we don't know who did or didn't earn them, and have no right to pass that judgement.

4) The alternative of taxing the bonuses back is even worse. As I write this, the House has already passed a measure that would allow them to tax the bonuses of AIG at a rate of 90%, virtually confiscating the bonuses. As a mitigating factor, the measure states that "The tax would apply to bonus payments made after Dec. 31, 2008, and it would cease when the U.S. government’s investment in the company fell below $5 billion." So, there are safeguards in place. It does, however, set a very dangerous precident. The government here is effectively circumventing contractual agreements that they do not agree with by using the IRS as a club. Brandishing this bludgeon and punishing behaviour for a small, select group of individuals or a specific company, they lay the groundwork for punishing other things the government doesn't agree with. You know, crazy behaviours like speaking out against Beloved Leader, participating in fringe extremist groups like the NRA or third-parties, or owning firearms. Insanity.

In summary, the government has said this: AIG has a lawful contract with some of its employees. We don't agree with the contract, so we're taking the money back, whether they like it or not.

Congress is voting itself more power each and every day. This may feel good right now. After all, they are acting in a very scary time.

Remember, though, what Benjamin Franklin once said: "They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." We would do good to remember it.

Update: Obama rating 33%

In my last blog I told you about Secretary Shinseki's statement that wounded veteran's should pay for their wounds with their own insurance. I gave Obama a 4% hit, and said that he'd get more if he actually went through with it. Then I happily submitted the rating, secure in the knowledge that not even Obama could possibly be reckless enough to actually support that. Having wrapped myself in said security blanket, I drifted blissfully to sleep.

Then Obama ripped my security blanket out of my hands, and used it to strangle a kitten. Read about it here. I'm dumbfounded. He plans to "generate $540-million by this method". Really? $540 million? Are you serious!? This administration has endorsed spending $1 billion an hour since they got into office, and yet they are apparently so concerned about the budget that they absolutely must screw our wounded warriors for 30 minutes worth of spending.

Think about that: If congress stopped spending money for 30 minutes, just took a quick lunch break, they'd save the same amount of money. In the time it takes to watch an episode of Samurai Jack, they could save the same amount of cash if they would just stop spending.

Re-enlistment bonuses in the National Guard have been eliminated due to budget cuts. Retention is down, recruitment is down, troop commitments in Afghanistan are going up. Now we're telling the American Fighting Man that if he engages the enemy and is unfortunate enough to be wounded, tough luck? This isn't exactly the Hope and Change we bargained for.

I apologize for the lack of my usual caustic wit. I'm trying, but it's really hard when I have massive quantities of blood shooting out of my eyes. Comrade Obama loses 6% for this outrageous continuation of his position. (He already lost 4% in the last post, and I've committed to a 10% up or down limit.)

Obama to Veterans: You're on your own.

Obama Approval Rating: 39%

Here we stand at day 52 of the Obama Presidency. My, it seems like just yesterday when $1 trillion seemed like a large amount of cash. How naive we all were! But I digress from the reason you are all here. On to the ratings:

The appetizer: Giving the Brits a collective slap in the face. Remember that we are told this President is the One. He will establish a new golden age of foreign policy. Everyone will love us, now, because we'll treat them with dignity and respect. Now, the British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is visiting him for the first time. They are one of our strongest allies in all the world. How could you possibly humiliate them in just three easy steps? Let's find out. (Read about it at the Washington Post or the Cleveland Leader)

Step 1: Return symbolic gifts. After 9/11 the Brits sent a bust of Winston Churchill to President Bush as a show of solidarity. It would be worth hundreds of thousands of pounds were it to be sold on the open market. It was displayed in the Oval Office prominantly throughout Bush's first term. At the end of the first term, the Brits offered to extend the loan, and Bush accepted. The Brits told Obama that they would be happy to continue the loan through his term. His answer: "Thanks but no thanks." A bust of Lincoln now sits in it's place.

Step 2: Break the traditional greeting. Usually when foreign heads of state visit with the President you see them sitting, side by side, each one in front of his own nation's flag. Everyone's seen these sort of photo ops. They usually say a few words to eachother, greetings and pleasantries and then field some questions from reporters. What does our White House do? No flag for the PM, to start with, which is a not-too-subtle slap in the face for the leader of another nation. Then Obama skips all the greetings and goes straight to questions. In fact, PM Brown doesn't get to say a word for nearly six minutes. On top of this the joint Press Conference that was planned was canceled.

Step 3: Receive thoughtful gifts, give gifts from White House gift shop. Despite having been snubbed on the greeting, despite having been insulted by having the bust sent back unceremoniously, PM Brown still came through. First, a bit of history. The President's desk is made of wood from the HMS Resolute, a ship that was saved by Americans and returned to England as a gift. In return, Queen Victoria ordered the desk to be made of the wood of the Resolute once it was decommissioned. Nearly every President since Hayes (1880) has used this desk. It is a unique piece of history, and a very symbolic part of the White house.

Brown brought to the President a pen holder "carved from the timbers of the HMS Gannet, sister ship of the HMS Resolute, the wood of which was used to make the Oval Office desk". Not to be outdone with this very thoughtful and historic gift, Obama gives the PM...a gift basket of 25 Classic American DVDs. I hope Brown likes movies.


The wives exchanged gifts too. Brown's wife Sarah "picked out dresses and matching necklaces from the trendy UK store Top Shop for Obama's girls, Sasha and Malia, as well as a selection of books by British authors." Michelle's response? Two toy models of the Marine One helicopter. Wow, that's amazing. You couldn't get that anywhere...Except maybe every gift shop in DC.


Three easy steps to a diplomatic disaster. So simple a caveman could do it. The President loses 4% for this horribly inept reception.


Now on the the main event, the reason this post is done today: Considering have combat-wounded veterans pay for their own service-related injuries. (Thanks to Hotair) According to CNN:

"Veterans Affairs Secretary Eric Shinseki confirmed Tuesday that the Obama administration is considering a controversial plan to make veterans pay for treatment of service-related injuries with private insurance...Asked about the proposal, Shinseki said it was under 'consideration.' "

If you're like me, you are currently picking your jawbone off the ground. Sure, it's not an official position yet. Sure, they haven't issued any piece of paper or supported legislation to get it done. Sure, if they were to put it to a vote, it would be "dead on arrival" (that from Sen. Patty Murray, D-Washington).

The fact remains, however, that it is being "considered" at all! That means that someone brought it up, and someone else thought it was a GOOD IDEA! This is how that conversation should have gone.

Person A: "Hey, I've got an idea to save money."
Person B: "Excellent! We always want to save the taxpayers money! That's the responsible thing to do, and our sacred duty to the American people."
Person A: "We should have veterans who get wounded in combat pay for their own service-related injuries with private insurance! We'll save LOADS of cash!"
Person B: "...." (Pulls out gun, shoots Person A in the face)

Normally this is where I would explain why the above action is wrong, and perhaps add some witty commentary. I don't think I can do that this time, though. In fact, there are really only two words that I can say to describe this: EPIC FAIL.

As much as I want to take him down the 10 Bajillion points he deserves, for now he loses 4% for not instantly condemning this position, and possibly firing Shinseki. Should it go on to be an official White House statement, more dramatic rating falls will follow.

This leaves Obama with a 39% approval rating. A 61% drop in just 52 days. How does he do it?

Connecticut seeks to govern Church

The the Judiciary Committee of the Connecticut State Legislature, which is chaired by Sen. Andrew McDonald of Stamford and Rep. Michael Lawlor, introduced a bill on March 5th. The name of the bill is bland enough: "AN ACT MODIFYING CORPORATE LAWS RELATING TO CERTAIN RELIGIOUS CORPORATIONS". You can read the bill in it's entirety here. (Thanks to Hotair for bringing this story to light)

Of course, by 'certain religious corporations', they only mean the Roman Catholic Church. What do they want to change? Nothing, really. (WARNING: Extreme sarcasm follows) I mean, it's no big deal. For instance, section 1B states:

"The corporation shall have a board of directors consisting of not less than seven nor more than thirteen lay members. The archbishop or bishop of the diocese or his designee shall serve as an ex-officio member of the board of directors without the right to vote." (emphasis added)

See? They only want to remove the right of the Bishop to have any say in the governance of his own diocese.

It's not that bad though. This Board only has absolute authority in trivial matters, such as:

"(1) Establishing and approving budgets;
(2) Managing the financial affairs of the corporation;
(3) Providing for the auditing of the financial records of the corporation;
(4) Developing and implementing strategic plans and capital projects;
(5) Developing outreach programs and other services to be provided to the community"

And of course, "The pastor of the congregation shall report to the board of directors with respect to administrative and financial matters."

The Connecticut legislature does find it in their hearts to allow the bishop to be in charge of "matters pertaining exclusively to religious tenets and practices." Gee, thanks.

Rep. Lawlor has this to say about his bill: "SB 1098 is a proposal to make changes in that law, which was suggested by parishioners who were the victims of theft of their funds in several parishes, and these parishioners feel that the state's existing Roman Catholic Corporate laws prevented them from dealing with the misuse and theft of funds."

He's such a nice guy. Too bad Rep. Lawlor has apparently never read a little document he swore to protect and defend, the US Constitution. If he had, he might have stumbled across the 1st Amendment. Since it's such a little known, dusty bit of parchment, I'll quote it here:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. " (emphasis added)

This proposed law is so blatantly unconstitutional I don't even know where to begin. The fact of the matter is the Catholic Church has every right to govern itself any way it likes. If they want to elect a chimpanzee (though hopefully not these chimps) to wear that funny hat and be a Bishop, that's their right. If they want their budget process to be throwing darts at the wall and then writing checks based on the results (kind of like the Federal Government), more power to 'em. The Government has no right to stop them.

I understand people are apparently frustrated that the funds they have given the Church aren't being used to their liking. Thankfully, we live in America, and for the moment you still have the right NOT to go to that Church. You still have the right to NOT give money to that Church, if you don't feel they are doing God's will.

The Legislature should not interfere, because the Church doesn't steal people's money at gunpoint. That's the government's job.

It's that time again

You know, the time when we as a species decide it's in our best interest for another species not to hang around anymore. After reading this article, I think we can all agree that the chimps have our number. It's one thing when they're only mauling stupid people in Jersey who keep them around as pets. It's completely different when they are planning out assaults on the general populace, and creating weapons caches.

As if this wasn't bad enough, I stumbled on this Washington Post Article that reports chimps in Western Africa fashioning spears to hunt small mammals! How did we let it get this far!?

If we let this continue, it's only a matter of time before the chimps start organizing. Then they'll either A) Lead the other, lesser animals in a revolt against our #1 Eater status, or B) Unionize and demand better wages and benefits. Either way, it won't end well.

Yep, it's official. Chimpo has got to go. Do you want your children to wake up one morning to this?

I think not.

What does $1 Trillion look like?

It's a big number. Most of us have never had to really wrestle with something that ginormous. If I say I have eight of something, you instantly understand and comprehend. I can go to a hundred, a thousand, perhaps even tens of thousands and still be with you. When people start to go higher, while we may intellectually understand the number, do we really grasp it? When something gets that big, it loses it's meaning.

Well, they say a picture is worth a thousand words. Personally, I think these are worth a bit more. Check out this visual representation of $1 trillion (Thanks to my Mom for sending this link to me). This gentleman used Google sketchup to draw out that amount of money, sitting next to a person, so you and I can get a good idea of just how much cash that is.

When you've finished absorbing that, remember this: Our debt is 10 of those right now, and it's only going up. Thanks, China!

Obama approval rating: 47%

Here we are again, with another round of ratings. I'm sticking hard to my schedule of completely random updates, in order to keep the enemy guessing.

First up: Yet another Obama nominee with tax problems. Really, stuff like this is just getting old. The first time around, it was outrageous. The second time, it was surprising. I mean, could they be burned twice? When they were burned a third time I rolled my eyes. Now I can only shrug wearily. This one only owes an estimated $10k to the IRS, so I guess it's not that bad. Of course, he won't be penalized for paying the taxes late. I mean, the IRS is just famous for working with people who are delinquent. It's not like he's getting special treatment. 2% drop in rating, because four times is just too much.

Next: Obama's reckless assault of Rushbo. The Politico reports that the Administration chose to target Rush because among Republicans he has the highest negative rating. They don't mention, of course, that he has this rating because he's a real conservative, and the party is full of spineless RINOs who we'd rather get rid of anyway. Regardless, this move is childish and unbecoming of the office of the President. Aside from that, by singling out a single personality here, and mobilizing the Left against him, he only increases the visibility that Limbaugh has, keeping him in the headlines. From start to finish, a poor move, in poor taste. O loses 1% for throwing down the glove.

Finally: Obama's Secretary of the Treasury, Geitner, attacks Oil. We recently had record high oil prices...Our dependence on foreign oil is terribly high...The weak economy guarantees everyone has more money...What to do...I know! Let's cut taxes reward innovation demonize Big Oil! He starts out by saying that Oil should not get any more subsidies from the government. So far, I agree with him. The government shouldn't be giving money to businesses in any way. Then he veers off course, saying the reason isn't any sort of free market principle. Oh no, it's because they "contribute to global warming". Are you freaking serious!?

So, he make a 13% tax increase. "The Obama administration's budget would levy an excise tax on oil and natural gas produced in the Gulf of Mexico, raising $5.3 billion in revenue from 2011 to 2019." He loses 4% for punishing homegrown energy (It would be more, but I do agree with the no subsidy policy...Just not for the same reasons).

The grand total: 47%, making this a landmark day. Today, March 6th, Obama slipped below 50%.

Al Gore: The Science is Settled

Hear ye, hear ye! All ye peasants, the unwashed masses, come and hear the words of Al Gore the Wise. Kneel ye at the altar of global warming climate change climate crises without fear or thought for the science is settled!

In all seriousness, it is quite frustrating to be told by this Nobel prize toting prophet that I am not allowed to disagree. In fact, the instant I express a different opinion, he would have me branded an idiot, a "flat-earther" who is contributing to the very destruction of the human race.

Let's look over the illustrious history of settled science. At one point, all great minds in the world agreed that: The earth was flat. Friction did not exist. Gravity was preposterous. The preferred state of being for matter was to be at rest. The list goes on and on.

Simply because everyone agrees with something, does not make it true. This argument isn't even necessary here, however. If the science is settled, apparently someone didn't clue in these guys. Read their paper, it's enlightening.

Because the Prophet likes graphs so much, here's one of theirs.
That's strange. According to this graph, it's almost like the Earth has been WAY hotter than it is now, and we weren't all consumed in a horrible fiery death. In fact, it almost looks like things are warming up because not that long ago they were pretty chilly...Whew, it's a good thing I have the Prophet to direct me away from annoying facts like this. I might get confused and think the science wasn't settled.

Newsflash: Islam still unfriendly towards West.

I write this note knowing that many people will look at my headline and instantly judge. I want to preface what I am about to say with this: It is my belief that a majority (how much of a majority, I do not know) of Muslims worldwide, particularly those who reside in America, are normal people like anybody else. They're just trying to live their lives and pose no threat to anybody.

That being said, I find this report quite disturbing (Credit to the Jawa Report, which is who I found this from). Most of the survey is written in statistic and is pretty boring, but fortunately you have me to do the dirty work. I've extracted a few of the graphs and added my own stolen wisdom to each.

Here's some highlights. At the top, question 1: How do you feel about attacks on civilians in the US? Here's how they responded.

Troubling. 5% may not seem like a lot, but...

The good news: Majorities agree that civilians, residing in the US, are not legitimate targets.

The bad news: Millions still think it's okey dokey!

8% of Egyptians (that's 6.5 million people) think that killing Joe Blow American, on his own soil, is a good thing. The Palestinian Territories (you know, the guys we just gave nearly a billion in aid to?) came in at an impressive 24% approval. These numbers don't even count those who have "mixed feelings" about the whole thing.

Moving to question 3: How about attacks on US Troops in Muslim countries?

Much more popular.

Ouch. The only good thing to say here is that at least the majority is endorsing attacks only on uniformed servicemen. It sucks for joes like me, but at least we're legitimate targets. Still, not a good thing that 40% of Turks, 90% of Palestinians, and 83% of Egyptians want to blow our boys away.

Question series 4: Opinions on Al-Qaeda views. Round 1: Sharia law. Not pansy sharia either, but "strict Sharia". You know, the kind that stones adulterers, punishes rape victims, that sort of thing. Survey says...

Well...That's not good.

Even in supposedely "moderate" Indonesia, nearly half of the population supports strict Sharia law in every Islamic country!

Round 2: What do you think of Al-Qaeda?

The first thing that strikes me is the staggering amount of "I don't know" answers. How can you not know? How have you, as a muslim, not ONCE thought of whether or not you agree with Al-Qaeda and its goals?

I'll tell you how: You have, but you can't say what you think.

This question, more than any other, should chill the bones. It subtly shows the effects extremism can have on those who are not extreme themselves.

Take, for instance, Indonesia. 9% approval of Al-Qaeda attacks and goals. Yet 51% say "I don't know." Perhaps I'm making a leap here, but I'm thinking a large portion of that 51% actually do know. What they know is if they speak out against Al-Qaeda, they become targets themselves. What they do know is that they have to stay quiet, or their families suffer.

This is what makes the Islamist so dangerous. The only person who qualifies as a Muslim, and who is therefore safe from his blade, is one who agrees with his stance on the will of Allah. All others are infidels, regardless of whether or not they face Mecca when they pray.

Maybe I'm crazy, but I think the writers of this survey have a terribly large set of rose colored glasses. They were also possibly high when they evaluated their data. I have to believe that, because otherwise that means they intentionally ignored the fact that what their survey actually shows is a loud, angry minority that believes: Sharia Law is a good thing, US Civilians are legitimate targets, and Al-Qaeda has the right idea. If we continue to pretend that these poeple do not exist, or that we can placate them with words and offerings, we do so at the risk of our own annihilation.

Danger lurks...Will we stop it, or be devoured?

Well, that didn't take long. Obama approval rating: 54%

Usually, this close to the last approval rating note I'd simply add a new development to the old one as another EDIT. When I read this, though, I nearly ruined the plans on my desk because of the large quantities of blood that shot out of my eyes. I simply cannot in good conscience tack this piece onto another note. It deserves it's own spot.

With that said, we'll take the small outrage first. Obama's earmarks in the latest $410 billion spending bill. No, I'm not talking about the Cracker-Barrel sized portions of pork in general. Here, I am specifically referring to his own personal piece of the pie. Despite having sworn off pork more fervently than an Orthodox Jew, the great Magic O has a $7.7 million dollar earmark with his name literally on it as a cosponsor. Now, in his defense, this one earmark is not his alone, and it makes up roughly .002% of the total bill. At the same time, it is a bit shameful that he cannot even go to the trouble to make sure he remains at least somewhat consistent on the pork. It's kind of like he's had his way with us, and he didn't even say he'd call us later. If he did, we'd all know it was a lie, but at least he would've made an effort. He loses 2% for this slap in our collective faces.

And now to the big one. Obama's administration has stated a goal of reinstating the assault weapons ban. Take a moment and clean the blood and/or vomit from your screens. Ready? Let's continue. His attorney general Eric Holder, according to ABC news, told reporters yesterday that "As President Obama indicated during the campaign, there are just a few gun-related changes that we would like to make, and among them would be to reinstitute the ban on the sale of assault weapons."

Where to even begin? Perhaps with the fact that gun control does not work. It only takes a lazy second to find evidence for this. Great Britain, for example, has banned nearly all guns in their tiny country. Even the vast majority of their police do not carry guns. Yet, even a quick google search of "drive by shooting London" reveals page upon page of incidents where criminals used their weaponry against an unarmed populace.

Not good enough for you? Ask yourself this, then. What possible reason could they have for wanting us not to own assault rifles? As opposed to a handgun, they are difficult to conceal. You aren't going to sneak around with a M-4 in your back pocket. If you want to be generous, you could say they simply don't trust us to use our weapons responsibly. You could take them at their word when the Attorney General says that they are trying to have a "positive impact in Mexico, at a minimum."

I don't think you ought to be generous, and I don't think you should take their word. I'll tell you real reason why why: When it comes to resisting your local tyrant, handguns and shotguns just don't cut it. No tyrant has ever liked his subjects to be armed. By systematically removing our ability to resist with force, they can then cut down our ability to resist with words, until our ability to resist at all is gone like a passing dream. Say what you will. You will never convince me that there is any reason a free government, intending to rule a free people, would have to restrict the reasonable armament of their populace. The Left believes they can rule your life better than you can. You aren't bright enough to see that, so it's in your best interest to remove your ability to resist, so that they can rule your life, for your own good.

Are Obama's plans for the future for tyranny and oppression? Maybe, maybe not. The fact of the matter is, though, that moves like this are paving the way for him, or another like him, to institute that very thing. For this egregious assault on our liberties, he loses a full 10% of his rating. I'll scale this back if Obama comes out and says his AG was out of line, or increase it further if he actually goes through with it.

UPDATE: Pelosi has said that she has not been approached regarding any gun ban in the works. Her reaction does make it less likely that such a thing is close to churning out. The rating hit still stands until Obama comes out against it, primarily because Pelosi is an elected official whereas the AG is appointed by the President (then confirmed by the Senate, of course.)

Want my guns? Come and take them. Sic Semper Tyrannis!

Obama's much anticipated approval rating: 66%

So, it's been a while, and I know both my loyal readers are anxious for another packet of stolen wisdom that I will shamelessly pass on as my own. I can only hope you do the same.



First on the agenda: The virtual withdrawl of US troops from Iraq by 2010. This gets a whopping 0% approval change. 0% because, well...The war is kind of over. Thanks to the surge (which Obama opposed and would still oppose, as a side note) and other military strategies, the Iraqis have come a long way. With any luck at all they will go on to be a viable state for at LEAST a couple years. It's really up to them now. Since this achievement was really an achievement of Bush's that is just a carry over, it doesn't affect my rating for the magic O at all. As an aside, he avoids negative points by not rushing it and apparently listening to commanders on the withdrawl timeline.



Second, the tentative budget as outlined in this article by the Washington post. (Thanks to Hotair for posting this story.) He has proposed to cut the Federal budget deficit in half by the end of his first term...I must point out this article is kind of like watching a beautiful olympian leave the diving board, and execute an amazing set of turns, twists, and feats in midair...Watching them stretch out to meet the water...Only to realize no one filled the pool.



The article states that "In addition to tackling a deficit swollen by the $787 billion stimulus package and other efforts to ease the nation's economic crisis, the budget blueprint will press aggressively for progress on the domestic agenda Obama outlined during the presidential campaign. This would include key changes to environmental policies and a major expansion of health coverage that he hopes to enact later this year." (emphasis mine) Wait a second...He wants to cut spending...And simultaneously provide a major expansion of health coverage? Where on earth is this money going to come from?



Wait, he tells you! The money will come from raising taxes on the wealthy. They can afford it. Their rate will go from "...35 percent to 39.6 percent, the tax on capital gains would jump to 20 percent from 15 percent for wealthy filers and the tax on estates worth more than $3.5 million would be maintained at the current rate of 45 percent" I see.



Oh, and one more thing. Aside from raising taxes on the wealthy, he plans to fund this budget cut by "slashing spending on the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan". Iraq I can see. Afghanistan? Not so much. So it turns out I was wrong. The pool actually was filled after all. With acid. And spikes. And zombies! He takes a 7% hit on this monstrosity.



EDIT: Realized I forgot one recent action. $900 million to rebuild Gaza. Sure, compared to the trillions he's spent so far, this bit of pocket change really doesn't seem like it's worth worrying about. I mean, what's another $900 mill between pals? Still, I can't get behind this act of "charity". It's weak and will get nothing accomplished. I'd be very surprised if a majority of the cash managed to stay out of Hamas' hands. Regardless, instead of trying to rebuild the place just to have it blown to smithereens again, why don't we either A) Get out of Israel's way so they can secure they own nation or B) Do something to help Israel accomplish A. Either way, this isn't the answer. He loses 2% for this superficial move.



...in the pool.

Revolution on Wall Street

Check out this shocking piece from the Communist News Broadcasting Network (CNBC). That guy is a reporter on the Wall Street floor. Listen as he passionately defends simple capitalist values, and then listen to the traders on Wall Street cheer and whistle in support.

I sense tremors in the grass roots...

Make mine freedom!

Check out this awesome cartoon. Old, but the message is timeless. Capitalism rules. Thanks to Katrina for sending me this.

Obama's Approval Rating: 75%

The "stimulus" bill has passed the House (kudos to the House Republicans there!) and the Senate (a plague of eternal woe on the three traitors!) and now sits on our President's desk. He has praised the bill and says he will sign it into law tomorrow (being 2/17). I now feel reasonably comfortable rating him based on the bill everyone calls his. Of course, if he wakes up tomorrow and the Capitalism fairy visited him in the middle of the night, I will happily withdraw this rating.



Final amount: $787 Billion



Critique number 1: Thanks for the cash China! With all the extra spending going on, forecasters predict that our budget deficit could reach $1.6 trillion, or roughly three times what it was last year. That means that every red cent of this spending is on loan from someone else. Many of these generous lenders have interests directly conflicting with our own.



Critique number 2: Tax cuts are great, but...Only if applied in the right way, and coupled with spending decreases. You can't simply tax cut your way to success if you at the same time increase spending. This is something that the Republicans recently seem to have completely lost touch with, and the Democrats have never understood. Giving money to the poor doesn't stimulate anything. No poor person has EVER gotten a job from another poor person. You want to stimulate something? Eliminate the capital gains tax, and pay for it by slashing welfare, social security, and every pork barrel project that exists. Eliminate unnecessary federal programs and turn more responsibility over to the states. But I digress.



Critique number 3: Smoke and mirrors. Sure the thing is loaded with more pork than a Cracker Barrel breakfast. If you look past that, though, you see hints of things more insiduous. The creation of so-called "green jobs" in the government, provisions to further government intrusion into healthcare, and a horde of other things all point to this not so much being about stimulus, but about a long-term course change for our nation.



Final verdict: I don't believe any one decision or bill should be worth more than a 10% knock off on the approval rating scale (barring Armegeddon like decisions, such as nuking Israel or banning Dr. Pepper). Therefore, this massive socialist spending bill earns the max penalty, a full 10% off his approval rating from me. This leaves him at 75%.



I looked around for something positive I could use to offset his nose-dive. I couldn't find anything. If you do have anything, though, up or down just leave it in the comments.



You have the right to free speech. You also have the right to remain silent. Guess which one the government wants you to use?

And America's choice for best President of all time is...

Why, Ronald Reagan of course! According to this Gallup poll. From the Gallup page: "These findings are from a USA Today/Gallup poll conducted Feb. 6-7. The question gave respondents the choice of five presidents often lauded for their leadership: two Democrats (Kennedy and Franklin Roosevelt), two Republicans (Reagan and Lincoln), and the symbolic father of the country and Lincoln's co-honoree on Presidents Day, George Washington.

These five presidents have consistently ranked among the most revered presidents when Gallup has asked Americans to say, in an open-ended format, whom they consider the greatest president."

Reagan gets 24% of the vote. Kennedy and Lincoln tie at 22% (Insert poor taste assassination joke here.) 18% to FDR, and 9% to George Washington.

Lincoln has the most bi-partisan support (25% Dems, 22% Independents, and 19% Reps). Reagan's was the most one sided (He pulled in 52% of those who considered themselves Republicans, but only 19% and 10% of independents and Dems respectively).

Exit question: What the hell is wrong with the other 36% of Republicans who didn't tap Saint Ronald? (For you math wizards, I'm giving the 12% who chose Washington a pass. He was pretty cool too.)

EDIT: I feel compelled to mention that the margin of error is +- 3%, so statistically speaking Reagan, Lincoln, and Kennedy are tied...Balderdash. I'm still going with Reagan.

IPs getting chewed out

Found this neat little clip on Hot Air.com

IP Platoon getting chewed out

Warning: Some mild language is involved.

Ramos and Compean

Okay, so I'm way behind the ball on this one, but I just read that apparently Bush did the right thing and commuted the sentence of our two favorite border agents. He waited until he had less than 24 hours left in his Presidency, but at least he finally got it done.

Not much else to say about that. I won't quite say justice has been served, because a pardon (or never having been charged in the first place) would have been justice. Still, I'll take what I can get.

Obama's approval rating: 85%

Well, it finally happened. Today, February 5th, President Obama's approval rating has dropped below 90%. Let's review.

The first drop comes from his cigarette tax increase. I don't smoke, but any tax increase is bad when American's are paying through the nose already. The biggest reason this is getting him a drop, however, is what it's for: Expanded healthcare for 4 million poor kids. Awww. Isn't that sweet. It's also redistribution of wealth. Smokers have no correlation whatsoever to those kids not having healthcare. Completely seperate issues, so why punish those who have a completely legal habit?

Face it: Healthcare is not a right. Let's look at that dirty old piece of trash called the Declaration of Independence: Life, liberty, pursuit of happyness....Hmmm...Yep, no healthcare. Don't get me wrong. I would love for people, out of the goodness of their hearts, to give and help those less fortunate than them get healthcare. That is not the government's job, and I am confident that if they would get out of the way, the private sector would take care of it. He drops 2% for this decision.

The second one comes from his talks with Russia. Our saber rattling friends have managed to cut off a major supply route into Afghanistan (through blatantly buying off Kyrgyzstan), which is only the latest in a string of aggressive actions against American interests. Obama's response? A delay of our missile shield in Poland (which is bad for the Polish, by the way. They stuck their neck out for us by defying a powerful neighbor, and we're leaving them to dry) and talks with Russia about decreasing our nuclear arsenals by 80%! We should be spending our time finding a technology that can defeat the nuclear capabilities of others.

Instead, Obama has the lofty goal of removing nuclear weapons from the face of the planet. I have the lofty goal of stopping time like Hiro. Both of our goals have approximately the same chance of success. Let's have a pop quiz:

Better weapon leads to
A) Defense against such weapon, rendering it obsolete
B) Even better weapon, rendering the first obsolete.
C) Everyone deciding to get along, destroying said weapon, and cooking s'mores while singing Kumbaya.

If you answered A or B, congratulations. If you answered C, please remove yourself from the gene pool.

Never, in the history of humans killing humans, has the knowledge of a weapon simply disappeared because people wished it to. Once it is digested into general knowledge, you can't get rid of it. We just love killing each other too much. All these talks are going to do is weaken our position, lower our street cred, and give other, crazier countries the chance to get nukes of their own before we can stop them. He drops 3% for this pipe dream.

That light of hope? Yeah, it's gone.

So, last week I wrote a note about New York Senator Gillibrand. I extolled her staunch conservative values on gun rights, on abortion, but mostly on immigration. Here, I said, is our ray of hope. Our beautiful spot of sunshine!

Yeah, not so much. In a typical show of spineless, disgusting politics she has now quickly recanted her immigration positions, going all linguini spined and spouting off about how much she's learned in the past few days. Basically, she's saying "I was a moron, but I'm better now." Yeah, sure. You're better. Now you're an unprincipled, cowardly liberal who apparently wouldn't know your real opinion if it punched you in the ovaries. You can check the interview out here if you want. Be prepared to vomit.

It is utterly disgraceful, the way that politicians shed beliefs to get ahead. Does no one have principle? Does no one have value? Here I speak not only to this worthless example, but to almost everyone in Washington. Where are we, as America, when we can count those who really believe what they say, right OR left, without using all our fingers? How long are we going to sit around and let these clowns run our life? How long will it be until we kick the bums out, with torches and pitchforks if necessary?

That's all I can say for now. It's really hard for me to type with this knife in my back.

Obama approval rating: 90%

EDIT: Rather than post a whole new note, I'm just editing this one. So, for his bumbling handling of the appointments he drops 2%. Do any of these people ACTUALLY pay taxes? For admitting he "screwed up" he gains 1%. At least, when cornered, he can admit it. Whether that'll mean he's gonna change it, or just hide it better next time, we shall see. So, he holds on to he 90% rating by a fingernail.

Obama did something today that has, tentatively, increased his rating by 1.7% (so it'll be an even number again.) He decided (for now, at least) not to cut the Defense budget, and in fact chose to propose an increase of 8% in the same. The jump here would go much farther if I felt confident he would at the same time be working to cut waste and pork, but judging by his stimulus package, that isn't the case.Since we're on the subject, he drops by 5% for his pork-ridden stimulus effort, which appears to have very little to do with actual stimulating. Throwing money around isn't the answer, especially if it's going to indebt our country for generations. To be fair, what is actually in the bill is as more Congress's fault than the President's. Still, he approves of the bill, which paints him guilty in my book. (As a side note, Sarah Palin loses some points here for not speaking out more strongly against this bill. She says she'll accept funds as governor and gives some token points against the spending, but she could be a lot more forceful about it.)

He's still treading water above 90%, if barely. I'm trying to go a little easy on him since he's new and all. You know, being President is a tough job.

Chuck Norris Facts

Here's a few facts I found on the fan page here on facebook and a few of my own. Remember: Laugh at Chuck Norris at your own risk.

Chuck Norris and Mr. T walk into a bar. The bar instantly exploded because no building can hold that level of awesome.

A viper once bit Chuck Norris. After a week of excruciating pain, the viper died.

Chuck Norris doesn't breath, he holds air hostage.

When you jump in water, you get wet. When Chuck Norris jumps in water, the water gets Chuck Norris.

Chuck Norris can kick-start a car.

Chuck Norris was born in a log cabin he built with his bare hands.

Chuck Norris has a vacation home on the sun.

Scientists have discovered that one drop of Chuck Norris's sweat can bring the space shuttle to Saturn, ride around it's rings on thousand times, then fly back without even using half the drop of sweat.

Chuck Norris doesn't mow his lawn, he just stares at the grass and dares it to grow.

The dinosaurs looked at Chuck Norris the wrong way. ONCE.

Like a Russian nesting doll, if you broke Chuck Norris open, you would find another Chuck Norris inside, smaller and angrier.

There no use crying over spilt milk. Unless it's Chuck Norris's milk, cause then you're going to die.

Chuck Norris has already been to Mars, why do you think nothing can live there?

Chuck Norris can set ants on fire with a magnifying glass. At night.

Before he forgot a gift for Chuck Norris, Santa Claus was real.

Oxygen requires Chuck Norris to live.

Leading hand sanitizers claim they kill 99.9 percent of germs, Chuck Norris kills 100% of whatever the hell he wants.

Once when Chuck Norris smiled, a puppy came back to life.

A blind man bumped into Chuck Norris. The simple act of touching him cured the man's blindness, unfortunately the first and last thing the man saw was a fatal roundhouse kick to the face by Chuck Norris.

Chuck norris is the reason someone dies every minute.

The chief export of Chuck Norris is pain.

Chuck Norris' tears cure cancer. Too bad he never cries. Ever.

A light of hope from the other side...

In this massive struggle of Red vs. Blue, it's hard for us to remember why we fight. "Well, Rookie...Because they're red...and...we're blue." (Kudos to those who recognize the quote)

So, I offer up a shining ray of hope and reason. Now, brace yourselves. Sit down if you must. Are you ready?

She's a Democrat. From New York.

Still breathing? Alright, I'll continue.

Now, she was just appointed there, and hasn't served really. Only time can truly tell what her opinions really are, and what her full stance is. However, in reading up a bit here, I've found that she is not only pro-gun, not only anti-bailout, but she wants to make English the official language of the US. She strongly supports increasing border security by agent numbers and technology. She strongly opposes any sort of amnesty for lawbreakers. At the same time, she's advocated reviews of the legal worker visa system, to ensure labor can still come in the right way. (Be still, my heart.)

Like I said, she still has plenty of time to screw up, and I know very little of her beyond these issues. Still, I cannot help but to hope that she is the genuine article.

Obama Approval Rating: 94.3%

EDIT: Some anarchist commentor of mine mentioned Obama's ending the wars overseas as a plus. How exactly that would stack up with his ratings here I've yet to determine. It would depend on many factors. Until he actually does something more than talk about it, though, I'm just gonna leave that alone here.

Quick update here. Obama dropped in my rating due to his decision to close Gitmo (with no other place to store the scum) and his decision to stop "torture". The torture thing is mainly because what he considers torture (i.e. waterboarding, sleep deprivation, pumping loud music, etc.) is not nearly what I consider torture. Basically, we now have to ask Hajji nicely for information, and hope he finds it in his heart to cooperate. Maybe if we gave them candy...Also, he is looking to fund the murder of children everywhere by funneling my tax dollars into Planned Parenthood. Great.

I did get informed of something that I liked...I am trusting the word of one of his supporters, but I've no reason to doubt it, so I'll roll with it. He said that his executive staff will not be getting any raises this year if they already make above $100k. A little bit less government waste is always a good thing. There was one more tiny thing he did that I liked...Can't remember what it is, but I do remember that it rated a .3% plus.

So, he loses 2% for Gitmo/Torture, 3% for Planned Parenthood, and gains 1% for the raise thing, and .3% for whatever the little thing was he did. Final total: 94.3%.

My Obama Approval Rating: 98%

Been a while since I've written anything. Since I have, Obama's gotten sworn in. He is now the President of the USSA, and my Commander-in-Chief. In the tradition of shameless idea-stealing of my notes, I've stolen an idea from Stu, producer behind Glenn Beck. He decided, in order to be completely fair, that he would start his approval rating of the big O at 100%. Based on performance, the rating will then go up, or down, from there.

Periodically I'll be updating my approval rating of President Obama, starting today. It didn't take long for him to slip, though it's only by 2%. During the swearing in, he appeared a bit nervous. Of course, I'd be nervous too if there was a good chance I was about to get shot in the head, so I'll let that all slide. I'm talking about his speech. The thing that struck me most is his apparent disregard for the size of government. He stated he had an attitude that (to paraphrase) the size of government didn't matter, as long as it works.

Stu only dropped him 1% for this, but I'm doubling that because I despise big government that much. So there.

Still, 98% approval rating isn't too horrible. Let's see if it lasts the month.

Every time I'm about to give up on Bush...

He goes and does something like this.

You gotta admire a guy who personally writes a letter to every single family (that's over 4000) who lost a family member in Iraq or Afghanistan (according to the Washington Times). He says he did it because he sees it as his duty as Commander-in-Chief to also be "comforter-in-chief" to those families who gave so much.

He and Vice President Cheney have spent countless hours visiting troops, taking extraordinary precautions to keep the Press away. The first lady said "these are such personal times when people grieve. And we grieve with them. And these are not times when you would want a camera in the room or other people around." That's right: A politician passed up hundreds, if not thousands, of opportunities for photos and great PR because it was the right thing to do.

Does this make Dubya a great President? No. This does, however, show that he really is a decent fella in an indecent world. Whether you agree with his policies or not, you gotta respect that.

Christmas in the Trenches

Christmas in the Trenchesby John McCutcheon

My name is Francis Tolliver, I come from Liverpool.
Two years ago the war was waiting for me after school.
To Belgium and to Flanders, to Germany to here
I fought for King and country I love dear.
'Twas Christmas in the trenches, where the frost so bitter hung,
The frozen fields of France were still, no Christmas song was sung
Our families back in England were toasting us that day
Their brave and glorious lads so far away.

I was lying with my messmate on the cold and rocky ground
When across the lines of battle came a most peculiar sound
Says I, "Now listen up, me boys!" each soldier strained to hear
As one young German voice sang out so clear.
"He's singing bloody well, you know!" my partner says to me
Soon, one by one, each German voice joined in harmony
The cannons rested silent, the gas clouds rolled no more
As Christmas brought us respite from the war
As soon as they were finished and a reverent pause was spent
"God Rest Ye Merry, Gentlemen" struck up some lads from Kent
The next they sang was "Stille Nacht." "Tis 'Silent Night'," says I
And in two tongues one song filled up that sky
"There's someone coming toward us!" the front line sentry cried
All sights were fixed on one long figure trudging from their side
His truce flag, like a Christmas star, shown on that plain so bright
As he, bravely, strode unarmed into the night
Soon one by one on either side walked into No Man's Land
With neither gun nor bayonet we met there hand to hand
We shared some secret brandy and we wished each other well
And in a flare-lit soccer game we gave 'em hell
We traded chocolates, cigarettes, and photographs from home
These sons and fathers far away from families of their own
Young Sanders played his squeezebox and they had a violin
This curious and unlikely band of men

Soon daylight stole upon us and France was France once more
With sad farewells we each prepared to settle back to war
But the question haunted every heart that lived that wonderous night
"Whose family have I fixed within my sights?"'
Twas Christmas in the trenches where the frost, so bitter hung
The frozen fields of France were warmed as songs of peace were sung
For the walls they'd kept between us to exact the work of war
Had been crumbled and were gone forevermore

My name is Francis Tolliver, in Liverpool I dwell
Each Christmas come since World War I, I've learned its lessons well
That the ones who call the shots won't be among the dead and lame
And on each end of the rifle we're the same

Pardons: Proof that Bush is Back on the Booze

Well, it’s official. Our President’s long success at sobriety is officially over. I cannot think of any other explanation that could address the list of pardons and commutations our man has issued here in the last week or so.

Let’s highlight a few of the best ones (from PMS-NBC):

- Andrew Foster of Falls Church, VA, convicted of the wrongful use and distribution of marijuana and cocaine.
- Geneva Yvonne Hogg of Jacksonville, Fla., convicted of bank embezzlement.
- And of course, my personal favorite: Obie Gene Helton of Rossville, Ga., whose offense was unauthorized acquisition of food stamps.

Unauthorized acquisition of food stamps!? Oh the humanity! The leader of the free world needs to address this issue IMMEDIATELY!

Lacking from the list of names are Ramos and Compean, the border agents who are currently languishing in Federal Prison. They are there because they shot a fleeing illegal alien drug dealer in the buttocks (the drug dealer was the only witness against them, by the way, and has since pled guilty to the charges against him).

Let’s take care of Foster, who was caught with 31 lbs of cocaine. He’s a fine upstanding man! Ramos? Heck no! Let that bastard rot. Obie’s food stamps: Priority #1. Compean being punished for doing his job? Priority #3,021.

You can go here or here to get details on the case. The short story is this is a miserable travesty of justice, one that could be quickly corrected by a swift stroke of the pen by Dubya. Many of you reading (I’m looking at you, Fluffy) may know I am somewhat lukewarm on the current President. I certainly don’t think he is the demon that the media makes him out to be. Neither do I think he is the worst President we have had in the last century or so (You only need to turn to Carter, Wilson, or FDR to save him from that). This latest round in a string of bungling, though (most notably the bailout), is testing my patience a bit.

Then again, maybe he just hasn’t gotten to it. I’m sure he’s just tied up taking care of the hot button food stamp issue.

Alaskan Caribou

Don't get me wrong, folks. I say we drill for oil in Alaska even if we have to drill through those cute, fuzzy little caribou heads. Still, this is worth saying, from Glenn Beck's Website (specifically, Stu's blog):



"1) Environmentalists say we can't drill for oil in Alaska because it will hurt the caribou.

2) Sarah Palin says that it's not drilling that's killing caribou–it's the wolves that keep eating them.

3) Sarah Palin authorizes thinning the herd of wolves, to protect the caribou.

4) Environmentalists say Palin is a vicious murderer for killing all those wolves.

5) Sarah Palin's plan actually works to save caribou.

6) Sarah Palin is still the one who is called stupid.Do you see what happens here?



Environmentalist policies address ZERO of the two problems— conservative policies address BOTH. "



Personally, I would've said screw the caribou. If they can't survive in the wild and fend off their own wolf problem, that's just nature at work. Species rise and fall. It happens. That's just because I'm a cold hearted conservative, right?



You would think, since the saving of weaker creatures (so long as they aren't human infants) seems to be a top priority to the Left that Sarah Palin would have been hailed as a hero. The whole reason we aren't drilling in ANWR is for these fuzzy little bundles of joy. So, saving them by destroying the problem should have been a good thing. Of course, that just wouldn't have been politically expedient.



And I mean, just look at the majestic landscape we'd be messing up.




Come on now. Who wouldn't want to save this lush landscape for future generations?

Is Obama a socialist?

The best way to start here is to define, first: What Is a Socialist? (The following is a rehash of a previous comment I made in another debate, because I’m lazy)

To answer, who better to ask than the Socialist Labor Party (SLP) of America? This party is the oldest socialist party in America, and the second oldest in the world. It was founded in 1876. According to the SLP, socialism would form a “classless society” and would “abolish the labor market”. American Socialist Daniel De Leon said that socialism “is that social system under which the necessaries of production are owned, controlled and administered by the people, for the people, and under which, accordingly, the cause of political and economic despotism having been abolished, class rule is at end.”

Class in America is defined primarily by income. People are grouped, roughly, by how much they make on a yearly basis. If we are to make a system with no social class, then it follows that you must eliminate the differences in the class. Logically, one class=one income=redistribution of wealth.

“Socialism means direct control and management of the industries and social services by the workers through a democratic government based on their nationwide economic organization.” And, “Under socialism, all authority will originate from the workers, integrally united in Socialist Industrial Unions.” So, Socialism means government control of the economy, assisted by democratic unions.

What does Obama propose?

He proposes nearly doubling the capital gains tax (from 15% to 28%) and that he will raise taxes on CEO’s (meaning, in context, on the rich) He says he will “spread the wealth around” because when this happens, everyone wins. Most famously with his conversation with ‘Joe the Plumber’, but he says things similar to this on many occasions. For instance, he has said that we must pay attention not only to “growing the pie” but also to “how the pie is sliced” in an interview with the WSJ.

Who will pay attention to how the pie is sliced? Obviously, according to Obama, it isn’t working to let it slice itself. The answer, if you think about it, is clear: The government.

Raising taxes on the rich while simultaneously giving breaks and checks to the poor? Check. Direct government control of the economy? Perhaps. His stance on unions, for instance, is very much in line with the socialist agenda.

Do you deny that redistribution of wealth is the goal of socialism? If you don't deny this, then do you deny that taxing the rich at a much higher rate in the interests of "fairness, not revenue", is moving towards that goal at breakneck speeds?

You say that because he is not proposing a 100% tax rate on everyone and then doling it all back out, there is no way he is socialist in any fashion. This is like saying: Obama is gathering firewoord, kindling, and tinder. He’s stacking it all in a nice pyramid, making sure it’s good and dry, and then buying some matches. But he has never suggested we light the match, so Obama is in no way pro-Fire, nor is he moving us in that direction!

As a quick aside, I had this to say on the bailout:

The bailout: A horrible idea. One of the most socialist plans ever invented. It's supported by Obama, by McCain, by Bush, by just about everybody except the American people. This shows that the idea of big government is pervasive, but since it's supported by both candidates, it's hard to use in a debate of this nature, except to warn that we cannot allow socialism to creep in any further. (Just to show internal consistency. When I see socialism, I call it, regardless of who proposed it.)

The Silver Lining

Wait! Put down the noose, put away the drain-o, and step off the ledge. You still have a lot to live for!

Sure, America just elected its first Socialist President. Sure, Republicans lost 5 seats in the Senate, bringing liberals breathtakingly close to a super majority. You already know all this. I could spend all day dooming and glooming about the prospects for the future, and I probably will some other time. Right now, though, let's look at the positive of all this. Walk with me.

1st: R.I.P. to hatemongering

America just elected its very first black President. This is a VERY historic time! Less than a century ago, racism was institutionalized. Only 50 years ago black Americans were being hosed in the streets. This is a sign of how far we have come. Perhaps now the Left can finally see that we are not a racist country. Perhaps hate mongers and race baiters like Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton will be put out of a job. Probably not, but maybe! At the very least, their voice might lose some weight.

2nd: The race was close at all

To win, Obama had to back out of one of his early campaign promises not to accept public funding. So, instead of being limited to $84 million like McCain, he raised and spent over $650 million. McCain was outspent by 5-to-1 in some states!

62 million Americans voted for Obama. 55 million voted for McCain. Examine that for a second. McCain, who was the most pathetic candidate the Republicans could’ve fielded. McCain, who wasn’t conservative but Liberal Lite. 55 million voters felt so strongly against socialism that they ignored the massive spending, they ignored the charismatic speech. They held their noses and voted against it. If we can gather 55 million people to vote for a crappy candidate, then there is still hope.

3rd: Conservatism wasn’t beaten

Conservatism, Reagan’s party, was not beaten because it wasn’t even in the game! There was no conservative candidate. McCain was not the pick of the conservatives. The conservatives split their vote between Huckabee and Romney. Our way is not dead, fellas. Trust me.

4th: The Socialists are unleashed

This may seem like a bad thing, and trust me, it is. But it also has a positive side effect. Because of their larger majority in the Senate and the House, and a socialist President, they now have complete control over what happens. This means now that they cannot blame anyone else for what happens. Their extreme leftist policies will drive this country into the dirt. If they implement what they believe in our economy will take a nose dive and really crash. This will be painful, but it will also show that their way doesn’t work!

5th: Reagan after Carter

It took someone astronomically incompetent like Carter to give us Saint Ronald. Who knows what profound conservative leader may result from an Obama presidency? Perhaps Palin-Jindal 2012? Whoever it is, I have great hope that they will lead us into new prosperity.

6th:Time to organize

We now have 4, possibly 8, years to get our people together. We have this time to root out the “Me too” Republicans, the wishy-washy liberals who wear the R next to their name out of convenience. We have the chance to re-take the Republican party (or give a more worthy party strength) and make it something worth fighting for again. Let’s make a party that is for the Conservative Capitalist system again.

Be vigilant, my brothers. This time will be difficult. It will be trying. We can make it through, because when it comes down to it, we are Americans. We are exceptional. We are the greatest nation on the planet, bar NONE, for a reason.

Let’s get started.