Sunday, November 29, 2009


Well, the jig is up, and, in a last-ditch desperate effort, the shakedown gets a little more obvious.

UN Climate Chief Yvo de Boer is calling for rich nations to 'contribute' $10 billion a year in order to 'kick-start immediate action up to 2012'

The money would help developing countries cope with ocean flooding, drought and other effects of climate change, while also helping them cut down on emissions of global-warming gases. The funds might eventually come from new sources, such as a tax on airline flights, but negotiators for now are seeking quicker infusions.

This is a redistribution of wealth on a global scale.  What is this money for? 

In scores of nations, money will be needed to build coastal protection, modify or shift crops threatened by drought, build water supply and irrigation systems, preserve forests, improve health care to deal with diseases spread by warming, and move from fossil-fuel to low-carbon energy systems, such as solar and wind power.

...In fact, much of the funding would go to "capacity building" — training, planning, getting a fix on needs, local emissions and related concerns.

Upfront money would also help rebuild trust between the rich north and poor south, eroded by years of relative inaction on climate, particularly by the United States.
Wow.  Is it just me, or is that last line reminiscent of reparations, except this time the big, bad US has victimized not just the southern US, but the whole southern hemisphere?   

And what will be a main source of conversation at Copenhagen, you ask?  As if you didn't know:

Finance expert Ballesteros expects Copenhagen to narrow the focus of talks next year on sources for longer-term, richer adaptation funding, such as a levy on international air transport, sharing in proceeds from the growing trade in carbon emission allowances, or even a global levy on carbon emissions.
 In case you're not exactly sure what all of that means, it means non-elected UN officials will be levying world-wide taxes on all of the rich nations and distributing the wealth as they see fit. 

What is the oversight or checks and balances on this system? 

Sometimes there really are conspiracies of global proportions.  This scam, because of the ClimateGate emails, is a heartbeat from imploding, but our 'leaders' have become, surprisingly enough, even more brazen. 

Sadly enough, our leaders are merely bickering on price at this point - there is no talk whatsoever of whether the money is necessary or not and whether, in the face of the climate email scandal, the science is even legitamate at this point. 

Above and beyond all that, where is all this money coming from? 

Are the other countries going to pony up a fraction of the amount, and expect us to pick up the tab again - as usual? 

Will we have to borrow the money they expect us to pay from China?  And if so, doesn't the fact that we have to borrow the money automatically put us into the 'poor' category?

We must put pressure on our elected officials to halt all funding of AGW projects until the science is further investigated.  There is far too much corrupt information coming to light.

We must be loud and implacable in the face of this attempted global coup. 



How conveeeeeeenient.

It turns out that East Anglia University's Climatic Research Unit has disposed of all of their original raw temperature data.  To be fair, this happened back in the 1980's, before current director Phil Jones took over, so this is not another mark on his record, but it is a mark on the record of the CRU.  Via the Times Online:

In a statement on its website, the CRU said: “We do not hold the original raw data but only the value-added (quality controlled and homogenised) data.”

This means that all 'baseline' information other researchers use will have been 'filtered' (read: altered) by CRU.  Hardly an unimpeachable source, these days.This is a common practice in the scientific community, but the raw data is generally considered to be a part of the record and is preserved as well. 

The data were gathered from weather stations around the world and then adjusted to take account of variables in the way they were collected. The revised figures were kept, but the originals — stored on paper and magnetic tape — were dumped to save space when the CRU moved to a new building.

Why didn't they transfer the data to an electronic format and archive it?  This is Science 101, guys.

Scientists often check each other's work and sometimes find things previously overlooked.  That is the nature of the much vaunted peer review.  But in order to legitimately be able to do that, the data sets must include the original raw data.  What if the mistake is made in that crucial first step - the processing of the raw data?  What if something is overlooked?  The results would be skewed before researchers even started.

It means that other academics are not able to check basic calculations said to show a long-term rise in temperature over the past 150 years.

What the CRU have done is not just illustrate how unscientific they really are, but also how long they've been that way.

Roger Pielke, professor of environmental studies at Colorado University, discovered data had been lost when he asked for original records. “The CRU is basically saying, ‘Trust us’. So much for settling questions and resolving debates with science,” he said.


A great Sunday funny - hat tip Brenna M!!

Thursday, November 26, 2009


The heat is on at East Anglia University's Climatic Research Unit.  According to the UK's Mail Online, the pressure is on for the head of CRU to resign due to his role in the ClimateGate scandal.  A leading environmentalist, George Monbiot, is calling for Phil Jones to quit.

'I am now convinced that they are genuine, and I'm dismayed and deeply shaken,' he said. 'There are some messages that require no spin to make them look bad.
'There appears to be evidence of attempts to prevent scientific data from being released, and even to destroy material that was subject to a Freedom of Information request.
'Worse still, some of the emails suggest efforts to prevent the publication of work by climate sceptics, or to keep it out of a report by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.'The head of the unit, Phil Jones, should now resign. Some of the data discussed in the emails should be re-analysed.'

So far, Jones has refused calls for his resignation, stating,

'We absolutely stand by the science we produce here at the University of East Anglia and it has been peer reviewed and published.

'Some of the emails probably had poorly chosen words and were sent in the heat of the moment, when I was frustrated. I do regret sending some of them. We've not deleted any emails or data here at CRU.

'I would never manipulate the data one bit - I would categorically deny that.;
Hmmm...really?  Is that your final answer, Mr. Jones?  You might want to rethink it.  No, technically they didn't delete it - they just lost track of it.  Not that he didn't try to get some of them deleted. 

There is also a possibility that the emails were released because of the FOIA requests.  The had apparently been assembled by East Anglia staff.  Why were they actually released and why is Jones saying they were hacked?  Well, maybe they accidentally released the stuff they were supposed to bury, and are trying to say it was a crime in order to make themselves the victim and try to distract from what the emails contained.  Or maybe they really were hacked, and the accidental release is just another rumor.

At least we know the emails are real now.

And things are starting to happen.  Like investigations.  Hopefully the British authorities will check into the much larger crimes perpetrated by those scientists, and not just if or who hacked the emails.

As Pat Michaels so aptly put it, "This is not a smoking gun, this is a mushroom cloud."

Wednesday, November 25, 2009


Uh-oh.  ClimateGate has hit YouTube.  The neo-pravda media are refusing to mention the scandal, but I have a feeling it's about to go viral:

It's time to contact the media and DEMAND they start investigating this scam.  This is a criminal enterprise that could potentially cost us trillions of dollars.  I am keeping a close eye on this issue.  I think not only should there be investigations, but that those involved should face jail time.  I'd love to know what the Goracle (Mr. Consensus) knew about all of this.

In his usual tone-deaf way, the Annointed One has said that he will be going to Copenhagen for the climate talks and says that they are nearing a deal

CBS has actually reported on the issue, so there is hope that it might be picked up by the rest of the media.

Yeah, I know, I know, there I go, being an optimist again...

Oh, and if the phrase 'Hide the Decline' has tickled your fancy, you can now get the ClimateGate T-shirt!  Captialism - it's a beautiful thing!

Tuesday, November 24, 2009


Unbelievable.  Three Navy SEALs are facing charges today after apprehending a high value target in a secret mission in  Iraq - the alleged mastermind of the killings of four Blackwater USA security guards in 2004.

Yes, the SEALs are facing charges. 

Apparently, the apprehension went a bit roughly and the terrorist in question was punched in the face. 

So the guy who killed and mutilated four American citizens (including hanging their bodies from a bridge for the world press to document) gets a bloody lip, and now the heroes who took him off the street are facing court-martial. 

The Obama/Holder/KSM legacy with a little Abu-Ghraib chaser. 

This PC garbage during wartime (or are we not at war in Iraq anymore?  I haven't heard hardly anything about it since January) is ridiculous. 

The UN, NATO and our Congress are turning our miliary into world police.  They are not police, they are military.  In a warzone.  During wartime.  And bad things sometimes happen to bad people.   

The whole story isn't out on this, so we don't know when the alleged punch took place and the circumstances surrounding it.  There will be updates, I'm sure. 

Stay tuned....

UPDATE:  I forgot to mention that a few years back, our forces were able to 'liberate' an al Quaeda playbook.  Check out items one and two on the list of things detainees should do if captured:

1 . At the beginning of the trial, once more the brothers must insist on proving that torture was inflicted on them by State Security [investigators ]before the judge.

2. Complain [to the court] of mistreatment while in prison.
 Seems like Mr. Abed is just following his playbook to the letter, and the military and the Obama administration are playing right along. 

Good to know the enemy knows how to exploit our weaknesses.  Really inspires confidence, expecially in light of the upcoming KSM circus.

Monday, November 23, 2009


Pajamas Media's Victor David Hansen wrote a great essay that is just too good not to share.  Please click the link and check out the whole article.  This piece is about the five reasons people voted for Obama:

Millions of independents and swing voters went for Obama for five reasons: (1) they believed the media hype that Bush was the “worst” (fill in the blanks); (2) the sudden financial panic of September 2008 and the anger at Wall Street banditry and bail-outs; (3) Obama’s youth, charm, and oratory; (4) the feel-good novelty of voting in our first African-American president; (5) Obama’s centrist campaign message of paying down debt, working with allies, drilling, being tough against Al Qaeda, and being bipartisan.

He then went on to discuss how those same factors that were so vital to getting Obama elected are now moot.  In short:

1) Bush is history. Like Truman, in time he will begin to look better not worse. More importantly, Bush’s sins that bothered voters— too much big government and big deficits—were simply trumped by Obama’s gargantuan deficits and federalization of health care, banking, and the auto industry. “Bush did it” doesn’t work any more. “Obama did it even more” is the new worry.

2) The panic that we would lose all our 401(k’s) and home equity has passed. What we are left with in its wake is a sinking feeling that badgering small business and the Chamber of Commerce, as if they are Goldman Sachs grandees, isn’t working. Raising income, payroll, and surcharge taxes at a time state, local, and sales taxes are surging, is, well, a good way to turn a recession into a depression—or at least a stagflating, weak recovery. Sometime around next March, “Bush’s did it” will transmogrify into Obama’s recession. Obama can’t run against the economy, but must fix it—or take the blame. His best hope is that the Republicans don’t run a demagogic figure such as he himself acted in 2007-8.

3) Obama’s smoothness is getting old. All of us can almost write the next Obama speech: a) “some” say/do, but “I” say/do… The bad straw man is set up, followed by the contrast of the annointed “I” and “me” ad nauseum. b) then comes the apology for the sins of the rest of us—mitigated somewhat by the election of , yes, Barack Obama, the first black President; c) third is the impossible: spending more on health care saves more; cap and trade massive taxes will result in economies; no more lobbyists means gads of them, Bush shredded the Constitution equates into I’m copying his anti-terror protocols; d) an end with hope and change ruffles and flourishes. Bottom line: the oratory is old and trite, given the lack of commensurate accomplishments.

4) On the matter of racial landmarks, some of the voters think, rightly or wrongly, that they did their thing, proving America is not racist by the fact of Obama’s election. Now? A lot of independents, however, won’t seem obligated to vote in 2010 or 2012, motivated by the same sense of liberal assuagement of guilt. This been there/done that feeling will be accentuated should Obama’s supporters continue to play the race card as his popularity dips as a result of a statist and neo-socialist agenda.

5) We know now that the campaign was a centrist deception. Bill Ayers and Rev. Wright make logical the presence of the Truther Van Jones and Anita Dunn (cf. her encomium to Mao). His most partisan Senate record presages his near suicidal effort to ram through statist health care, tax hikes, and partisan appointments, in addition to polarizing rhetoric. His campaign promises to meet with Ahmadinejad were not only met, but again trumped by serial apologies, selling out the Poles and Czechs and outreach to Chavez and Castro. In other words, the so-called right-wing nuts who tried to scare the hell out of voters are proving to be Nostradamuses of sorts.

So what does this all mean?  How will the massive deception that was perpertated upon this country in 2008 effect future elections?

That said, I think not merely the thrill is gone, but a righteous anger about an Obama trifecta— of serial apologies and bows abroad, massive borrowing and deficit spending, and government-take overs of private spheres of life—is swelling up in the electorate. I haven’t seen in my lifetime anything quite like it. And this furor of being had has the potential not just to take Obama down, but also his ideology and supporters along with him for a generation.
God willing.

Sunday, November 22, 2009


Well, Saturday Night Live stepped up to the plate and knocked it out of the park:

Mr. President had better get used to puckering up, 'cause, just like Hu Jintao, I and millions of other taxpayers like to be kissed BEFORE YOU DO SEX TO ME!!!


Saturday, November 21, 2009


'Debate' is taking place on Capitol Hill as we speak on the HarryCari health 'reform' bill.

Mary Landrieu is the big winner this time around, with her $100 million 'Louisiana Purchase' payoff. Beltway insiders write this off to politics as usual, but for the rest of us who are going to have to fork up that $100 million (not to mention the $4.5 trillion for this piece of garbage bill), politics as usual just isn't cutting it.

Most moderate democrats are saying they will vote for debate because, really, what will it hurt? Debate is good, debate is what makes this country great.

The problem is, voting for debate opens this horrible bill up for a 51 vote approval, and 97% of bills that are voted into debate are passed.

At 2:30 pm, Sen. Lincoln has said that she will vote yes on proceeding with debate. That means Reid has his 60 votes.

God help us.

UPDATE: Well, they passed it and it is now on the floor for debate. This bill is a monstrosity on many levels, and hopefully the more moderate democrats will finally realize that and vote against it when it comes up for a final vote. I'm not holding my breath, though. After all, they are full of grandiose visions of making history, and God knows stroking their egos is more important than the welfare of the country. How in the world did Harry Reid manage to keep a straight face when he came out after the vote and said that the bill 'saves lives, saves Medicare and saves the American people money'. It must have been a joke.

Much like this bill.


There have been some crazy goings on in California this week. UCLA students have been protesting a 32% hike on tuition. UC Davis students have joined in the fun, as have UC Berkely students. No surprise there. Also not surprising, there have been near riots, and about 100 people have been arrested.

According to, "Regents say they had to raise fees because the cash-strapped state government can't meet the university's funding needs."

My favorite quote, from economic student Sarah Bana to the school board: ""You are jeopardizing California's future." "

It's always painful to watch people get mugged by reality, but there is also an ironic humor to it as well. Raising tuition is what is jeopardizing CA's future, not all of the crippling social programs liberal putzes who graduated from CA universities have forced on the state.

A future Obama administration official in the making stated ""We are bailing out the banks, we are bailing out Wall Street. Where is the bailout for public education?" asked UCLA graduate student Sonja Diaz."

When in doubt, bail it out, right? Liberals must think the US government can just pull money out of thin air. Oh, wait....

Another young woman, Laura Zavala, said that, ""It's not fair to students, when they are already pinched.""

Welcome to the world of the American taxpayer under the Obama administration, honey.

Friday, November 20, 2009


Christmas sure came early this year! Instead of elves, though, we have hackers to thank for it.

I've been dying to post on this all day.

Hackers got into email accounts for a major climate change research center in the UK, the East Anglia Climate Research Unit. When it comes to climate change research, they are one of the biggies. But now a decade's worth of emails have been leaked from this highly regarded facility onto the web, and boy, is it juicy.

The emails discuss manipulation of climat change data, because apparently the data wasn't supporting the theory. Now, I'm no scientist, but I thought the data was supposed to either prove or disprove theories. This blatant manipulation of data to force it to support a theory is a lot of things, but science it is not.

You know what's great about all of this? What it must be doing to the people behind such posts as this one. Oh, how I would love to be a fly on the wall in Al Gore's mega CO2 footprinted mansion. He has a new book out right now, and so there is a wealth of material from the past month or two of him talking about how passing climate legislation is practically guaranteed to bring down the temps. Maybe because he knows it's just a matter of showing the real numbers? More fun about the book tour in a minute.

East Anglia is coming out swinging, though. The spokesperson said, ""We are aware that information from a server used for research information in one area of the university has been made available on public websites. Because of the volume of this information we cannot currently confirm that all this material is genuine. This information has been obtained and published without our permission and we took immediate action to remove the server in question from operation. We are undertaking a thorough internal investigation and have involved the police in this inquiry.""

They are attempting to plant the seed of doubt, and mentioning the police instantly turns them into a victim. Which they are, considering their files were hacked. But if these emails are true, then the real victims are the taxpaying citizens of the world who have been forced to comply with government mandates costing billions of dollars.

Thank God this came out before the Copenhagen summit. That summit could potentially cost us trillions of dollars and possibly our sovereignty. Hopefully this scandal will at least cause people to take a step back from the cliff and take a good long look at what's going on.

It will be interesting to see how this all pans out. Stay tuned!

Oh, I almost forgot - the Goracle, on his media blitz for the new book, is touting geothermal energy. It's hard to take him seriously, though, when Mr. Science misstates the temperature of the earth's core. By a few million degrees. Hey Al - according to the Dept. of Energy's Ask a Scientist webpage, the earth's core is considered to be between 3,000 and 5,000 degrees Celsius. If it were 'several million' degrees, earth would be a star, not a planet.

Seems like the High Priest of Gaia needs to brush up on his science.

Better not do it at the CRU!

UPDATE: Sorry, the Hadley Centre is not one and the same with East Anglia's CRU. The Hadley Centre gets its information from the CRU and the emails in question are from the CRU. I have changed the post to reflect that.

UPDATE II: Not only were the CRU 'scientists' falsifying information, they were apparently also throwing their well respected weight around making sure scientists with differing opinions were not given a forum for their papers to be published - and then scoffed at their lack of published papers as proof they and their scientific opinions were not taken seriously. According to Pajamas Media, "The emails suggest the authors co-operated covertly to ensure that only papers favorable to CO2-forced AGW were published, and that editors and journals publishing contrary papers were punished. They also attempted to “discipline” scientists and journalists who published skeptical information."

I highly recommend you read the whole article. It includes links to the actual emails as well as a summary of the scandal.

Thursday, November 19, 2009


HarryCari is being analyzed, and boy, is it scary. The word 'tax' is used 183 times.

That can't be good.

It allegedly would cover an additional 31 million Americans for a total of 94% insured. But, at a cost of $2.5 trillion, I'm thinking it would be an awful lot cheaper to just flat-out pay for nice Cadillac plans for the 31 million. Heck, let's throw in the remaining 6% uninsured for good measure - it would still be cheaper than the horror story that is HarryCari!

Now Harry is taking a page from Nancy Pelosi's book and is trying to force a vote on a Saturday night before a holiday, preferring to wear down rather than win over. How much time is being allotted to navigate a 2,074 page piece of legislation that will reshape 1/6th of the economy? 10 hours.

God help us all.


I don't know if you've heard, but Sarah Palin is on a book tour.

So far it is really paying off for her. The book sold 300,000 copies on the first day, she is dominating the news cycles, people are waiting for hours in the cold to see her, and, best of all, her favorables are up.

Democrats are quite understandably...concerned? worried? freaking out? about the whole thing. As with most people, they are turning to impulsive self-comforting by....fundraising.

One of them has apparently gone off the deep end, and another is cheapening their own brand in a desperate bid to cheapen hers. The offensive thing about that cover isn't so much the picture - yeah, it's sexist, but at least they chose a flattering picture - it's the byline. "She's bad news for the GOP - and everyone else, too" Wow. No, there's absolutely no slant whatsoever to that article.

What I love about this is that the media are so desperate for ratings that they are giving her the forum she needs to set the record they created straight. It's a beautiful thing.

The Oprah and Barbara Walters interviews were huge for her (and Oprah) and she was in the driver's seat the whole time. She was calm, relaxed, approachable and open. The first part of her interview with Bill O'Reilly was good - more serious than the first two, but very effective - I look forward to seeing the other two. Her interview with Sean Hannity got phenomenal ratings, and she came across as relaxed, sassy, and smart. So far, she has been appealing, honest and friendly, and the rising approval ratings reflect that.

Judging from Chris Matthews' coverage of her book tour, the tingle up his leg has turned to tinkle down his leg. You know their backs are up against the wall when they toss out the race card. Apparently attracting mostly white people completely de-legitimizes her popularity and makes the thousands of people who came to see her into a smaller group somehow. I'm sure the few people of color who do come out to support her will be lambasted as 'trying to be white', or 'betraying their people' or plain old 'misguided', so does it really matter if there were any there anyway?

It all sort of reminds me of a weasel gnawing off it's own paw to get out of a trap. They are looking at their own demise, but just can't seem to stop.

It's rather pathetic and sad.

It's obvious that they are afraid of her, and it's obvious they are right to be. I find a sweet irony in the fact that Obama's biggest supporter, Oprah, may have well handed his biggest adversary her most effective success to date.

Sweet, indeed.


Let me be frank - I'm not a huge fan of Lindsey Graham. I think he is one of those wishy-washy RINO types that have helped the liberals with their progressive agenda.

But every now and then, he surprises me.

Eric Holder looked like a deer in headlights, could not defend his decision to try KSM 6 blocks from the scene of his act of war, and did nothing to convince Americans that criminal trials are the way to go.

It is becoming more and more apparent that this whole exercise is a back-door route to trying the Bush administration and the CIA for war crimes. This isn't about proving KSM's guilt. That was done when he confessed. Because of that confession, there shouldn't even be a trial. And yet, there is.

Holder and Obama are quite convinced he will be found guilty. I'm no lawyer, but isn't that predetermining the outcome, much like a kangaroo court? And why, exactly, do you need to find him guilty? He already admitted he is! Yes, Mr. Holder, the evidence against KSM is overwhelming - he entered a guilty plea. But, then again, this is the guy who allowed a guilty verdict against New Black Panther Party voter intimidators to be thrown out with no explaination whatsoever, so nothing his department has done so far has made much sense.

Criminal courts have way too many loopholes to let off the criminal - such as officials assuring the public of not just a guilty verdict, but a death penalty guilty verdict before the trial even begins. Apparently Obama and Holder have forgotten that whole 'presumption of innocence' thing - or maybe they think it is actually 'presumption of guilt'. Is that part of the 'change' we were sold during the election last year?

Sen. Graham is absolutely right - this is BAD history that Holder and Obama are making. In their asinine quest to 'showcase' the American court system, they are showing the world that America is okay with kangaroo show trials. That is NOT the American way. This scenario smacks more of Chavez's socialist Venezuela than the United States.

They are also making NYC a target again, and costing the city, which is already deep in the red, an estimated $75 million in added security costs. The trauma the people of New York suffered will be revisited for as long as this trial lasts - which may be years, if some analysts are right. That trauma will be amplified by the anxiety of a potential al-Quaeda strike.

Even if al-Quaeda doesn't strike, our criminal trial process will put information at KSM's (and, by extension al-Quaeda) fingertips that a terrorist of his caliber simply shouldn't have.

Put simply, Obama is allowing Holder to compromise our security to go on a Bush administration/CIA witch hunt.

This is an absolute travesty and must be stopped. Kudos to Sen. Graham for recognizing that and calling it what it is.

Wednesday, November 18, 2009


The CBO came out with the preliminary numbers on Harry Reid's health care proposal - $849 billion. The liberals will be crowing about how it comes in under Obama's quote of $900 billion.

Yeah, 'cause that's a bargain.

The most glaring problem with this number? They neglect to mention the taxation starts 4 years before the program is implimented, which leads one to believe the successive decades will see massive deficits. Unless they are planning on having 4 years of every decade 'off" to recharge the account.

Considering the accounting tricks that have been unearthed in the House, I wouldn't put it past them at this point.

The second biggest problem with this bill and it's scoring is that information is constantly changing; the numbers are being massaged before our very eyes. The press has received their copies, but nothing is on line yet. God only knows what horrors reside in those 2,074 pages.

I'm sure I'll be blogging more on it in the days to come. The HarryCari horror story of the day?

The CBO is trying to be as accurate as possible, but that's pretty hard to do when information is being withheld or hidden. What, for example, happened to the 'doctor fix'? You know they've got to sneak that in somehow.

Also, how can something costing $846 billion save $127 billion over 10 years?


I feel like I'm in a Fellini movie.


Things are really heating up in chilly Upstate NY. The 23rd district, to be exact.

Apparently there are some serious...anomalies in the vote results. According to an email sent out by Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate:
  • his campaign received faulty information on election night,
  • inspectors read numbers incorrectly over the phone,
  • a loss in Jefferson county has turned into a 400+ lead,
  • not one but four districts incorrectly entered his vote total as zero.

So far, a 5,000+ 'win' for Owens has trimmed down to 3,000+, with 10,000 absentee ballots to go. The odds are good that Owens will still end up the victor, since Dede Scozzafava was still on the ballot at the time they went out. Of course ACORN and the unions seem to be involved, according to the Hoffman campaign. No concrete proof yet, though, so the jury's still out on that.

What surprises me is that no one seems to be talking about the legitimacy of Owen's vote for PelosiCare - perhaps because even without his vote it would still pass. But it certainly does illustrate the desperate measures Pelosi and co. are willing to sink to, all the way to allowing an uncertified civilian to vote for Congressional legislation.

The fact that the State Board of Elections Communications Director John Conklin sent a letter to the House Clerk explaining there was no winner yet in NY-23, no matter what the press are reporting is getting zero play. What's next, Nancy swearing in some buddies for the day to pass amnesty and 'working out the details' of the vote's legitimacy later? She seems to be playing politics pretty fast and loose lately, no?

Taken alone, this incident could be considered a minor glitch. But combined with the hyper-partisan strong-arm tactics, the manipulation of the press, the demonization of dissent, the KSM kangaroo court they are planning on setting up and the utter lack of concern - nay, disdain - for what the majority of America wants, this is starting to really look like a dictatorship. I'm just not sure who the dictator is - Obama or Pelosi.

Is there such a thing as a co-dictatorship?

Tuesday, November 17, 2009


"The great thing about this administration is that all of the conservative theories about liberal policies are being proved over and over. The latest petri policy? The Recovery.Gov website. This thing is actually even more of a boondoggle than first anticipated.

And that's saying something.

So far, billions of dollars have been spent, and unemployment is still at 10.2%. The number of 'inaccuracies' on the website are jaw dropping in their obviousness, right down to whole districts that claimed jobs created don't even exist. Kudos to ABC for actually reporting something for a change. We must pat them on the head in encouragement for the good things they do just as much as we smacked them on the nose for the bad. It's the only way they'll learn, you know.

My favorite one? The one where 25 jobs were created but zero stimulus money was spent. Hmmm, maybe Obama really is The One, cause that's a friggin' miracle!

I also love that the people counting the stimulus jobs count as stimulus jobs. What a scam!

The real problem is that everyone is focused on these crazy stories, but no one is talking about where the money is really going. Those are some pretty big numbers, so I think that is a far more important question. So much for transparency, accountability and ethics.

The argument that has been proven by all of this is that they can't even manage a website, let alone the whole program (which is obviously a failure) , and yet there are those out there who are willing to put 1/6th of our economy and our health and well being into the hands of the same idiots who enacted this mess. (BTW they just proved the argument that rationing is a part of our future with the governmental recommendation that women shouldn't get yearly mammograms until age 50, instead of 40)

They may be able to shrug off Medicare/aid, the post office or the VA by saying they didn't enact those things and this time it will be different, but between the stimulus and Cash for Clunkers, I think we've gotten a big enough taste of how it will be if they really start running things. It's not a coincidence that Congress's approval rating among crucial Independents is down to 14%.

These people couldn't run a Popsicle stand, but 47% of Americans think they should run our health care. This actually proves a liberal theory, for a change - a vast number of the voting public are complete morons.

UPDATE: Awesome - even the NAACP, La Raza and the AFL-CIO are complaining to Obama about the lack of jobs from the stimulus bill. I wonder when they will be demonized for daring to speak out against The One and his schemes....

I do have a problem with their requests, though.
"They will call for increased spending for schools and roads, billions of dollars in fiscal relief to state and local governments to forestall more layoffs and a direct government jobs program, “especially in distressed communities facing severe unemployment.”"
Considering the first stimulus was supposed to give increased spending for schools and roads and fiscal relief for states and localities, I'd say trying it again with Porkulus II would be just throwing good money after bad. As for the federal jobs program, well, we all know by now how well the federal government handles such programs, so that would be just another ineffective government program. Eventually they will realize the only way to encourage job growth is to lower taxes, pull back on the oppressive, expensive legislation, and let the free markets do their thing instead of having their federal fingers in every body's pies. I'm sure if they don't figure it out by Nov. 2010, the voters will make sure there are people in place who will.

Sunday, November 15, 2009


The New York Times, in a breathtakingly obtuse move, is trying to spin Obama's indecisiveness about Afghanistan. So what ridiculous excuse are they tossing in a trial balloon and floating out through their favorite neo-pravda media outlet?


That's right, the administration that has been and is still attempting to spend our money like drunken sailors is citing budget constraints as a reason to not send troops.

Of all the arguments they could have used, this has to be the lamest. How about the old 'Vietnam-like quagmire' argument? Or maybe the loss of life is too precious and the outcome too uncertain?

No, they chose the money argument.

If they were at least trying to be more frugal in other policy areas, they might have a chance of persuading people to this argument. But they are flagrantly spending massive amounts of taxpayer dollars in just about every other sector, and yet, suddenly, the only thing they are NOT throwing hundreds of billions of dollars at is the war. The war that Obama himself called the 'good war'.

Let's not forget that they are adding pork to the military funding bills, to the tune of billions of dollars. Stopping that practice alone would pay for 2,000+ boots on the ground for a year at the NYT's quoted cost estimate of $1 million per soldier per year. A number which is suddenly three times larger than the amount used just a year ago under the Bush administration. The Times cites increased cost due to mine-resistant troop carriers and surveillance equipment, as well as the large cost involved in transporting fuel and supplies in the mountainous region.

Just imagine the army we could have fielded with the $787 billion non-stimulating stimulus bill - not to mention the $1.7 trillion health care bill! Plus there's Cap and Tax in the chute and I'm sure amnesty isn't going to be as free as it sounds....

All in all, I'd have to say Mr. Obama has made it very clear that, although he loves the global adoration, that is all foreign policy is for him - an ego stroke. He doesn't want to get involved, because he's too busy "fundamentally changing" the United States of America. Allowing us to leave in defeat from Afghanistan plays into the far-left world view anyway. America should not win under any circumstances because it makes us seem arrogant and superior, apparently. It's okay with them if we leave a power vacuum that will breed more terrorists and undermine, discourage and demoralize our military yet again. Incompetence is apparently preferred to perceived superiority.

It's this sort of nonsensical thinking that must have lead them to offer budget constraints as their asinine argument for not increasing troop levels in Afghanistan.

The blatant hypocrisies of this administration boggle the mind.


Yet again the leader of the free world is prostrating himself. His 9 day whirlwind tour of Asia started with a bow to the Emperor of Japan. Not a little head tilt a la Bill Clinton, but a full-on, bent over double bow of subservience.

What an embarrassment.

As for it being a matter of protocol and respect for a head of state, perhaps Mr. Obama has forgotten that he, himself is a head of state (and a far more powerful one, at that), and, more importantly, an American President should NEVER bow to another ruler. That's why we fought a revolution in 1776. Hot Air Pundit has a great photo montage of how other heads of state have greeted the Emperor.

The White House tried to spin Obama's bow to Saudi King Abdullah a few months ago, saying he was picking something up off the floor. That lame attempt at spin was easily debunked by looking at the video of the bow.

Perhaps this time they will say that Obama was merely getting a closer look at the Emperor's snazzy new Ferragamos or something.

President Obama is showing himself to the world as a subservient beta male. Someone needs to clue him in that nobody likes a butt-kisser.

Friday, November 13, 2009


I heard this audio for the first time yesterday on, and just had to blog about it, especially since ACORN just filed suit against the federal government to get their funding back.

According to David Lagstein, a CA ACORN spokesman, the 'investigation' into ACORN corruption is going to focus on the two independent film makers, Giles and O'Keefe, instead of on ACORN, and they will face punitive action, not ACORN. This audio was recorded on Oct. 15, but has just recently come to light.

This is absolutely despicable. Unfortunately, it is also not unexpected.

The fact that a DA is having conversations about prosecuting the case with one of the parties being investigated, is making pronouncements on the investigation before it is concluded (if it's even begun, which is up for debate) and has basically said the investigation itself is merely a politically expedient thing to do in an election year shows just how deep the corruption goes.

The Governator needs to set up an independent investigation into not just ACORN, but Jerry Brown's involvement and whitewashing of the original investigation.

The Obama administration has taken no steps whatsoever to investigate the nationwide ACORN corruption that was made apparent in those tapes.

The 'independent review' ACORN CEO Bertha Lewis crowed about a month ago has gone nowhere, to no one's surprise.

There are some in the GOP who are saying that ACORN is on the brink of bankruptcy, but, honestly, how many GOP-ers do you think have access to the inner workings of that democratic bastion of corruption and collusion? One can hope, of course, but I think this Hydra isn't beaten just yet.

The fact that they are now suing the government to reinstate their funding is about asCheck Spelling ballsy a maneuver as I've seen in a while. But, considering the attitude of government officials like Jerry Brown, I suppose they feel they have a pretty good shot at being re-funded.

That, too, would be despicable, but not unexpected.

After all, 2010 is an election year, and, let's face it, the democrats need all the help they can get.

Wednesday, November 11, 2009


To all of the veterans of this wonderful country, thank you for your service.

Because of you, we are privileged to live in the greatest country the world has ever seen.

You are the heart and soul of liberty, and you are deeply loved and respected by the country you so bravely protect and defend. You have chosen a difficult path, fraught with peril, and your sacrifice is acknowledged and appreciated for the great gift that it is.

To those who have served, those who serve still, and those who have given the ultimate measure of devotion, without you, we are nothing.

God bless you all, and God bless America.

Sunday, November 8, 2009


Well, history was made last night. The worst bill in the history of this great country passed the House.

Proving what an unpopular stinker of a bill it is, it barely passed, 220-215. It limped over the finish line with just two more votes than necessary.

Queen Pelosi, of course, reveled in her victory, with her fawning syncophants bowing, scraping and clamoring for her autograph. Gag. What's worse is, that is the only reason why those bills were unwrapped - God knows they weren't opened to be read....

Rep. Cao has officially replaced Dede Scozzafava as the new posterpol for getting rid of RINOs. I'm sure Dede's having quite a laugh right now, considering Bill Owens, who ran against the public option for his entire campaign, voted for Pelosicare. Not that it matters - she would have, too.

The interesting thing is that most experts thought Her Imperial Highness would breeze that hideous behemoth of a freedom stealing, job killing, tax generating economy bomb through with a larger majority. Seems there are more CYA democrats than she thought.

His Holiness came down to mingle with the little people, Rahm 'The Enforcer' Emanuel no doubt skulking about in the shadows. The charm machine was set to 11and the pitch was made to be a part of history. I don't know about them, but this is definitely NOT the legislation I would want to go down in history for.

Well, now it's in Harry Reid's hands.

Why am I not reassured?

Friday, November 6, 2009


Wow, is this one a doozy. It turns out some of those 3,345 'shalls' have some really stiff penalties.

Today, Rep. Dave Camp R-MI, ranking member of the Ways and Means Committee released a letter from the Joint Committee on Taxation (JCT). This letter outlines the taxes and criminal penalties involved in non-compliance of the insurance mandate.

If you do not "maintain acceptable health insurance coverage" (the level of acceptability is entirely at the discretion of the federal government), you will be subject to an additional 2.5% income tax. This includes if you lose your insurance due to losing your job and not being able to afford a new policy because you're unemployed.

If you still continue to thwart Queen Pelosi by refusing to insure yourself, you will be subject to:

"• Section 7203 – misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.
• Section 7201 – felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years.” [page 3]"

So, if you're on Welfare, you don't have to pay anything. But if you are busting your hump to make a living (and pay for the people on Welfare) and end up losing your job because of the economically suicidal policies the administration is enacting, you will then be fined and possibly imprisoned. Is it just me or does it make more sense to skip the unemployment and go straight to Welfare? If you can't beat 'em, join 'em.

BTW - did I mention her policy is going to cost $15,000? That is the lowest cost family non-group coverage available under her plan. Who the hell can afford that? I thought the whole point of this insurance 'reform' was to bring down costs and make insurance affordable for everyone.

Boy, if you think the prisons are overcrowded now, just wait 'til this thing kicks into effect.

Sounds like the American version of storming the Bastille is going to be on the revolutionary agenda after all.


Just about everyone should know by now that unemployment is at 10.2%. The Neo-Pravda media is desperately trying to put a happy face on it, of course. That's a pretty tough thing to do, though, since experts were expecting the number to go to 9.9%, so the leap to 10.2% took everyone off guard. No matter how you slice it, though, 10.2% unemployment is bad. There's just no way to spin it.

So what trial balloon is floating out as a solution?

Another stimulus bill.

Do they really think we the People are going to go for that?! For God's sake, we didn't want the first one!

The first stimulus was supposed to be 'shovel ready'.

Oh, we need a shovel, all right....

Isn't it interesting that one of the leading sectors of the economy, construction, is showing losses? I thought that was what the last stimulus was all about - infrastructure.

It really is getting insulting how stupid they think we are.


Today's horror provision isn't just a horror, it is also in direct violation of both they Hyde Amendment and the Smith Amendment.

Nancy Pelosi is determined to force her far-left progressive agenda down our throats. One of the major provisions that Americans are against is government funded elective abortions. The Hyde Amendment prohibits the use of federal funds to pay for elective abortions under Medicaid/care, and the Smith Amendment prohibits federal funding of abortions under the federal employees health benefits plans.

Pelosi's plan requires at least one insurance plan offered in the government exchange to cover elective abortions. On top of that, a monthly abortion premium will be charged to anyone enrolled in the government option. These premiums will be paid into a Treasury account that will be an abortion pool to pay for elective abortions.

Well, only people who opt into the plan will have to pay that, some will argue. The problem is, the way the bill is set up, eventually the only option will be the government (excuse me, consumer) option, and so all of us will eventually be paying into the pool. Maybe not next year or in five years, but, down the road, when all the private insurers are eventually driven out of business (which is the ultimate end result of the legislation), we will all be subject to it.

It will be interesting to see what the blue dogs make of this. So far, there are 43 democrats who have vowed to vote no on the health care legislation if there is abortion funding in it, so I'm sure Nancy will be twisting arms extra hard over the next 48 hours. Hopefully the blue dogs will stand firm against this abomination.

Yesterday they said the vote would be held Saturday, but I am hearing now that it will be Sunday. Sounds like Nan took a count and realized she's coming up short. What I'd really like to see is some blue dogs telling her they will vote yes so that it comes to the floor and then vote no to kill it once and for all. They would be heroes in my mind, and I'm pretty sure I wouldn't be alone.

UPDATE: A Planned Parenthood director just stepped down after two events - she witnessed an abortion ultrasound, and she got a directive to stop pushing prevention and start pushing abortions due to tough economic times. According to Ms. Johnson, "her bosses told her to change her "priorities" and focus on abortions, which she said made money for the office at a time when the recession has left them hurting." I mention this in this update because I find it interesting that A) Planned Parenthood is 'hurting' and needs to promote more lucrative abortions, and B) that Pelosi, a big supporter of Planned Parenthood, has conveniently opened the floodgates of federal funding. Let's not forget C) it turns out Pelosi's former deputy chief-of-staff, Cecile Richards, is now President of Planned Parenthood.

What a coincidence.


First of all, my thoughts and prayers are with the victims and families of the Fort Hood Massacre. I pray the families of the victims find comfort in their grief, and that the injured heal quickly and completely, both physically and emotionally, from their wounds. They were in a supposed safe haven, a place of security, and it has been brutally taken from them. I hope they are all able to find solace and comfort, and I hope they know that America shares their pain and supports them in their grief.

The unbelievable events yesterday at Fort Hood defy understanding. Major Nidal Malik Hasan was allegedly shouting "Allahu Akbar" (God is the greatest) as he was shooting his fellow servicemen. Thirteen people are dead, 30 injured.

There is talk of his having PTSD (Post Traumatic Stress Disorder), but considering he hadn't served overseas yet (he was scheduled to be deployed in a few weeks), I find that hard to believe. His cousin called in to Fox News yesterday and spoke to Shepard Smith about how, as a psychiatrist, he was constantly hearing horror stories from soldiers who had returned from Iraq and Afghanistan, but, again, I find it hard to believe that someone could suffer secondhand PTSD. Psychiatrists hear horror stories all the time, it's the nature of their job, but how often do they shoot up innocent people as a result?

There is also talk that he was being harassed for his Muslim faith, and that has been raised as a possible reason for his snapping. But it seems to me he was tossing some bombs of his own at his colleagues - this is a man who was talking about Muslims rising up against their 'oppressors'. He was NOT talking about Al Qaeda or the Taliban - in his eyes, the oppressors seemed to be the US military. According to his cousin, after 9/11, Hasan's worst fear was that he would be shipped overseas, and had been trying to get out of his deployment.

Thankfully, Hasan survived - something he wasn't planning on, considering he had spent yesterday morning giving away his possessions - and will hopefully answer all of the questions we have about his actions. He will also be held responsible for his actions, something that is usually denied the survivors and families of victims because the perp usually ends up dead. I hope he is locked up for 13 lifetimes.

Now on to the other disgusting event connected to the Fort Hood massacre.

President Obama should never have gone out to make remarks yesterday. His offhanded manner, his light and smiling attitude and 'shout-out' to an audience member before addressing the shootings (which he took more than 2 minutes to get around to) was despicable, inappropriate, and about as far from Presidential as a man can get. At a time when the American people were looking to him for comfort and reassurance, instead of a solemn, grieving Commander-in-chief who just lost some of our best and brightest, we get a man who seemed a bit put out that he was having to put off his health care push to Native Americans to deal with the Fort Hood situation.

All I could think when I saw the press conference was that he, like many far-left progressive/liberals, holds the military in contempt. I wouldn't be surprised to find that he felt that it was just some 'baby-killers' getting their just desserts, considering his remarkable insensitivity to the crisis. The dismissiveness with which he dealt with such a horrendous situation is beyond reprehensible.

If he has an ounce of integrity in him, he will apologize for the lack of compassion and solemnity yesterday and get serious about being Commander-in-chief and be the support his troops desperately need right now.

It is becoming more and more apparent that Obama is only President of one (liberal) sector of America, and the rest of us just simply aren't worth his time, understanding, compassion or sympathy.

Thursday, November 5, 2009


Today, at Rep. Michelle Bachman's (R-MN) invitation, thousands of Americans will be flooding Capitol Hill in protest of Nancy Pelosi's behemoth health care bill.

She is calling for Tea Party protesters and other concerned citizens to not only stand outside the Capitol building in protest - she is also opening the doors so that constituents can visit their representatives and express their concerns in person.

It's time they were reminded who works for whom.

If you can't make it to D.C., fear not, you can still participate.

For those unable to make the trip, there is Operation HouseCall. Take a few minutes today to call or email (or both) your representative about the health care legislation. Please remember to use your best manners - bad behavior only makes the opposition stronger.

The Tea Party Patriots website has all the information you need to send a message to your Congressperson.

Let's melt the phone lines, shut down the servers and put the fear of American voter backlash into those Blue Dogs on the Hill.

It''s time to remind them (again) of the power of the people.

Let Pelosi know her Miracle Pill just won't work. Have fun storming the castle!

Wednesday, November 4, 2009


I have an observation about all this jobs saved/created malarkey.

By the way, my personal favorite headline is from the Washington Examiner - "Stimulus saves nine out of every five jobs".

According to the White House, getting a raise is equal to saving your job now. I was under the impression that getting a raise is the ultimate indication that your job is already secure, but what do I know?

My favorite administration quote comes from HHS spokesman Luis Rosero: “If I give you a raise, it is going to save a portion of your job,”

How exactly does one lose a portion of their job? Can you be partially fired?

I'm starting to understand why there is so much talk about the legalization of marijuana lately. You have to be high to figure out what the hell these people are talking about.

But my real question is this - considering the highly creative accounting that is going on with this whole 'saved and created' shell game, does that mean that all of the people who have lost their jobs because of the horrendous decisions coming out of this administration and had their unemployment benefits extended under the stimulus now count as jobs created?

Seems par for the course, at this point.

After all, without that extension from the stimulus, they wouldn't have any money coming in at all, right?


The final tallies are in and Republicans have taken the VA and NJ Gubernatorial races. Unfortunately, Conservative Doug Hoffman lost the NY-23 race in a four-point squeaker.

It's still a win of sorts, though, because it has (hopefully) taught the GOP a valuable lesson about what kind of candidates should be running - fiscally conservative, low tax, smaller government proponents. One can only imagine how much impact the $900,000 would have had if it had been spent on Hoffman, instead of Scozzafava. Not to mention the 5% of the vote Scozzafava got yesterday could have put Hoffman over the finish line even without the money.

The other bit of silver lining from this race is that we now know that independent candidates can be competitive, even in moderate areas. Which makes sense, really, because many conservatives I've spoken to are fiscally conservative, but more moderate on social issues (as long as they don't raise taxes or smack of socialism).

So although it would have been nice to have a clean sweep, overall I think the message has been sent to both parties.

BTW, Bill Owens, the democrat winner for NY-23 opposes the health care public option (and gay marriage, for that matter - hey, doesn't that make him a closed-minded bigot?), so he's still better than Scozzafava.

Tuesday, November 3, 2009


Here's the breakdown for the Christie win in NJ:

Seniors went for Christie 54% -41%

Independents went for Christie 58 - 31%

The youth vote, which was 17% of the Obama's NJ vote last year didn't show up - barely 9% voted

But my favorite poll:

The most important quality voters voted for?

Change 39% (then Values 27%, Experience 17%, Honesty 13%)

Oh, the irony....

Now that's change I can believe in! (sorry, couldn't resist)


Came across this when I was doing some research and had to share. From

"Obama said the financial state of New Jersey was not Corzine's fault, saying it "didn't start under Jon's watch."
"I have something to report: We have the worst financial crisis since the great depression," he said. "By the way that didn't start under Jon's watch. That didn't start on my watch. I wasn't sworn in yet. We got a little bit of revisionist history, a little selective memory going on, a little amnesia about how we got into this mess.""

The 'It ain't my fault, Mom' routine is getting old, first of all.

Second, beautifully articulated as usual, Mr. President --

""We got a little bit of revisionist history, a little selective memory going on, a little amnesia about how we got into this mess.""



Today's horror is two-fold.

First, the scoring of Pelosi's bill rings in at $1.2 trillion. But she still insists that it will help reduce the deficit - not just in the first decade, but also in the second. I don't know what she's on, but it must be in the hallucinogen family.

So what does that $1.2 trillion buy us?

111 brand spanking new bureaucracies.

Oh goody, just what we need - more government!

Oh, and just for good measure, the word 'shall' appears 3,345 times in the bill. How much you wanna bet each one of those 'shalls' is backed up with a penalty or fee if we don't comply?

Democrats are denying that there are so many bureaucracies, saying they are 'demonstration projects', and the new agencies are just new 'projects' (rebrand, rebrand, rebrand!):

"A Democratic source dismissed the list of "bureaucracies" as an exaggeration, calling them "demonstration projects" instead.
"The programs and demonstration projects they list aren't new agencies but rather new projects," the source told Fox News. "And they're sensible ways to test new policies before more broadly implementing them. ... Many of the programs and demonstration projects are things that Republicans themselves have called for and supported." "

Yes, because we all know that programs and projects the government implements are hardly ever made permanent. If you read the quote carefully, you will note that the source says they are "ways to test new policies before more broadly implementing them", which means they will be implemented eventually, right? Unless they are trying to get us to believe they will admit to a mistake and dismantle an agency...sorry, I need a minute to get the laughter under control.

Anyhoo, of course they have to mention that there are republican ideas included in those 'projects' to give it an air of acceptability. What ideas would those be? Not funding abortion? No. Tort reform? No. Opening up state lines for a free-market insurance solution? No. Restricting illegals from accessing coverage with the public option? No.

Yeah, sounds real bipartisan.

I'm an optimist at heart, so the silver lining of this behemoth is that 111 new bureaucracies should mean more jobs.

Well, at least in 2013, when the plan goes into effect. I'm sure we can hang on 'til's not like our taxes are going to go up astronomically in the meantime!

Oh, wait....


Well, today's the big day!

It's election day in NY, NJ and VA. The VA gubenatorial race is pretty well tied up for the Republican, who is polling up by double digits over his Democrat opponent. The races in NY and NJ, though, are going to be squeakers. According to some polls, Doug Hoffman, the Conservative Party candidate for NY-23 is ahead, but not by too much, so this election is definitely one to watch.

But the one we all need to keep our eyes on is the NJ gubernatorial race. Democrat Jon Corzine is the incumbent, and he is neck and neck in the polls with Chris Christie, the republican candidate. The spoiler might be the independent candidate, Chris Daggett, who may draw enough votes away from the republican to allow Corzine a victory. To help this scenario on, Corzine and the DNC has spent a large chunk of money on robocalls for the independent candidate. Apparently Corzine's campaign, even though it has been heavily backed by Barack Obama who has made numerous trips to the state in recent months to promote Corzine, is really, really desperate. The robocalling incident is incredibly underhanded and dirty, and hopefully word of this trick will reach the voting public and backlash on the democrats by ginning up sympathy for Christie.

But it gets worse.

The ACLU, in a state supreme court ruling that came out Oct. 17th, has successfully blocked exit polling by all the major news networks - ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, Fox and the Associated Press - a very important move that could have a major impact on Corzine's election. Why is this so important? I'll give you a one-word answer:


Yup, every body's favorite corrupt community organization is neck deep in the Corzine campaign. Corzine has told them to keep a low profile, though, so not much has been mentioned about their involvement. But make no mistake, they are involved.

As a matter of fact, it turns out the election is already under a cloud of suspicion due to the fact that over 3,000 absentee ballots signatures don't match up to the signatures on file. According to the Wall Street Journal:

"The state has received a flood of 180,000 absentee ballot requests. On some 3,000 forms the signature doesn't match the one on file with county clerks. Yet citing concerns that voters would be disenfranchised, Democratic Party lawyer Paul Josephson wrote New Jersey's secretary of state asking her "to instruct County Clerks not to deny applications on the basis of signature comparison alone." Mr. Josephson maintained that county clerks "may be overworked and are likely not trained in handwriting analysis" and insisted that voters with suspect applications should be allowed to cast provisional ballots. Those ballots, of course, would then provide a pool of votes that would be subject to litigation in any recount, with the occupant of New Jersey's highest office determined by Florida 2000-style scrutiny of ballot applications."

No exit polling + absentee ballots + ACORN = a seriously questionable election.

Things like this make it hard to believe we still live in America.

BTW, the independent candidate is quite liberal, so it would be an interesting little twist if it turns out he was backed or encouraged to run by Corzine's campaign or the DNC in a desperate effort to siphon off votes from Christie.

By hook or by crook, eh?

Sunday, November 1, 2009


I, like many conservatives, am anxiously awaiting the election results for NY-23. Democrats are saying the republican party is shunning moderates at their own peril, and some republicans are concerned that running a conservative like Hoffman as opposed to a moderate like Scozzafava will cost them seats. That theory of 'who cares how fiscally responsible they are as long as they have an 'R' after their name' has led the party to the minority they have today. And yes, I understand the idea that upstate NY conservatives are more liberal than most, Mr. Gingrich.

Just like in 2006 and 2008, Americans are being told that true conservatives cannot win; that moderates are the only way Republicans can win elections and take over a majority again. By the way, it's mainly democrats saying this, and, after all, they only want to help republicans win elections, right?

Is it just me or is there a whiff of desperation is those adamant cries of 'conservatism is dead'? Methinks thou doth protest too much...

I think the main issue that all conservatives, be they moderate or strict, are truly conservative about is taxation, spending, and the role of the federal government in our everyday lives. THAT is what this election is all about. And democrats know it.

What bothered me about Dede Scozzafava wasn't her pro-abortion, pro-gay marriage stance, it was the fact that she supported the stimulus bill. That denotes fiscal irresponsibility, in my view, and I think there are a lot of conservatives who would agree with me.

No matter what Joe Biden says, you just can't spend yourself out of bankruptcy.

But this is an election with specific issues that people are voting on, not just general party ideology. Doug Hoffman is up in the polls because his main platform is lower taxes, smaller government, and fiscal responsibility - things that are desperately needed right now. Happily, they are also the things that both hard-core and moderate conservatives can agree on whole-heartedly.

What got us into trouble over the past few election cycles was the profligate spending, taxing and rapid growth of the federal beast by republicans as well as democrats. Sure, those types of republicans might appeal to more left-leaning voters, but it also alienates them from their traditional base, so there is more of a cancelling out or even a net loss than a net gain in overall voters. No matter what the liberals might say (loudly, shrilly and a bit desperately, in my humble opinion) about this being an overwhelmingly liberal country, this Gallup poll shows just how wrong they are.

Democrats, with their earmarks and perks and special interests catering were making great strides in seducing the electorate with their overwhelming largess, to the detriment of the country as a whole. The democrat theory of governance is simple - throw money at the problem and eventually people will stop complaining about it. It seems the republicans have adopted that 'path of least resistance' ideology in an attempt at wooing voters with promises of perks and fiscal rewards, and that is one of the main reasons the country is at the brink of financial ruin.

Democrats want to paint republicans into one far-right leaning corner so they can trap them in the guise of 'old-fashionedness' - or the new buzz-word 'status quo', if you prefer - but moderate republicans chafe at that description. They also chafe at fiscal irresponsibility, and that is the heart of the matter. Once our economic house is in order, other conservative issues like abortion and gay marriage can be addressed.

I personally feel, much like Ronald Reagan, that we can all fit under the tent, as long as it is strongly held up by the support poles of low taxation, fiscal responsibility, and limited government. Without those things, the tent collapses, as the 2006 and 2008 elections illustrated.

So when the democrats warn that we will alienate moderates with the hard-core tea party rhetoric, they are completely missing the point. But what else is new when it comes to democrats understanding the Tea Party phenomenon? The tea parties were about reckless spending, taxation that has surpassed high and is now approaching the astronomically confiscatory stage, the massive expansion of the federal government, and profligate special interest payoffs.

Any republican who believes the democratic theory of alienation of moderates is first of all taking advice from their adversaries, which is just not a wise move no matter how you slice it, and second is showing how tone-deaf and out-of-touch they really are.

UPDATE: Dede Scozzafava has just confirmed what most conservatives who are backing Hoffman were saying by endorsing Democrat candidate Bill Owens. There was a lot of talk of her being far more democrat leaning than she was letting on, including speculation that she might change parties as well as her apparent connections to ACORN, and this certainly does nothing to change that opinion. At least her campaign manager is still a conservative and has endorsed Hoffman. It will be interesting to see what effect her endorsement has on the race, if any. 60% of her supporters identify themselves as conservatives and are most likely going to break in Hoffman's favor, but, because Owens and Hoffman are polling so closely (36-35% respectively), it is still anyone's game.


Meet Patricia Sullivan.

I'm happy to announce she is our first candidate to run against Alan 'Teacups' Grayson. She is a stay at home mom who, like many women today, are concerned about the explosive growth of government and how it will impact the quality of life for her children.

She considers herself a patriot, not a politician.

She is an attractive, conservative white southern woman, so I'm sure the liberals will be out for blood.

Please check out her website and keep her in mind for November 2010.

Good luck, Patricia, and God bless you in the coming fight. Grayson has proven over and over that he has no class, no ethics and no sense of decorum, so it will most likely be a dirty fight.

But she's a conservative woman - she can handle it.