Friday, March 20, 2009

On the Lighter Side with Limis Ward


Fair is Fair


CNN Special Report:  Presidency in Crisis


Cooper:  Welcome back to CNN's continuing coverage of the shocking comments made by President Obama regarding disabled Americans.  I'm Anderson Cooper.  In case you're just joining us, last night on NBC's The Tonight Show, in response to a question by host Jay Leno about his bowling ability or more accurately, his lack of bowling ability, President Obama stunned the nation with these insensitive comments:


Leno:  Now, are they going to put a basketball – I imagine the bowling alley has been just burned and closed down.

            Obama:  No, no.  I have been practicing all –

            Leno:  Really?  Really?

            Obama:  I bowled a 129.

            Leno:  No, that's very good.  Yes.  That's very good, Mr. President.

            Obama:  It's like – it was like the Special Olympics, or something.


We're joined now by the nephew of murdered former President, John F. Kennedy and chairman of the Special Olympics, Timothy Shriver.  Tim, what do you make of all this?


Shriver:  It's outrageous.  This man, and I refuse to refer to him as President because he's no longer my president, this man is trying to cover his own miserable failures as a bowler by criticizing the most vulnerable segment of our society, the disabled.  I can't understand how on the one hand this vile man dares to compare himself to my uncle, President John F. Kennedy, and then goes out and says this kind of stuff.


Cooper:  I can see you're pretty upset by all this.


Shriver:  My phone has been ringing off the hook all morning.  Fortunately my secretary, who I'm proud to say is also a participant in the Special Olympics, is hard of hearing so it's not bothering her too much but I can tell you there's a lot of upset people on the other end of those lines.  My inbox is overflowing with emails from outranged parents and Olympians from all over the country.  What really makes my so angry is here this man, Obama, still a relatively young man, voluntarily disables himself by injecting nicotine into his body while our Special Olympians have no freedom to change their condition.


Cooper:  You talking about the cigarettes.


Shriver:  Yes.  It's disgusting that this weak man doesn't have the willpower to stop this disgusting habit.  You want to see willpower, come on out to our 2010 USA National Games next July in Omaha.  We'll show you willpower.  When you see some poor, retarded kid struggling with all his might to throw the javelin without hitting anybody, when you see…


Cooper:  Are you crying Tim?


Shriver:  I'm sorry, Anderson.  You just don't realize how deeply this upsets me.


Cooper:  We understand completely Tim.  Do you need a few minutes?


Shriver:  Maybe I better take a break.


Cooper:  Take all the time you need, Tim.  That's Timothy Shriver, chairman of the Special Olympics and member of the vaunted Kennedy family.  We're joined here at the desk now by MSNBC's host of Countdown, Keith Olbermann.  Well Keith, you just saw the head of the Special Olympics break down over the insensitive comments of President Obama.  What do you think?


Olbermann:  You know Anderson, if you thought about all the unbelievably stupid and insensitive comments you could make, I don't how you could come up with anything as destructive as Obama's comments from last night.  I mean you could rip on the homos or pound on the dykes or tear the homeless a new one or


Cooper:  Alright, alright, I think we get the point which is, criticizing the disabled is about as low as you can get.


Olbermann:  Damn straight.  Who does this guy think he is?  Some kind of god?  Is that what this country is coming to?  Our President, the God, can strike down the weak and defenseless with impunity?  We can't just sit here and take this.


Cooper:  What should we do?


Olbermann:  I tell you want we should do.  We should gather up all the gimps, the retards, gather up all these Special Olympians and march or wheel or whatever it takes, on Washington.  Every American city and town should see a convoy of short buses heading to our nation's capital to avenge this wrong.  I bet you didn't' know this but there's a Special Olympian up in Michigan that's rung up a 300 game.  Let's encircle the White House with these people and dare that punk Obama to take on this kid.  We'll see who's laughing then.


Cooper:  Sounds like a great plan but in the interests of journalistic integrity I must correct one minor point.  That kid you refer to is actually a 35 year old man.


Olbermann:  Whatever.  He'd kick his ass even if he was 135.  Obama sucks.


Cooper:  Excuse me Keith.  My people have just informed me our next guest is available.  Can you stick around?


Olbermann:  Sure.


Cooper:  We joined now by Lynette Harris, mother of Alfred Harris, a Special Olympian from Pawtucket, Rhode Island.  How are you Mrs. Harris?


Harris: (sobbing) I've been better, Anderson.


Cooper:  Yea, I know, I know this must be tough on you.  Tell us about your son.  I understand he's quite the athletic.


Harris:  Alfred's been competing in the pole vault for a number of years.  He can clear one foot pretty consistently and we're shooting for 15 inches by next summer.


Cooper:  That's incredible.


Harris:  You should see how excited he gets during the games.  I don't know what we'd do without them.


Cooper:  Just to be fair, no matter how insensitive the President's comments may have been, I don't believe he intends to stop the Special Olympics.


Harris:  Well that's just it, Anderson, you never know.  When you have a man who's so insensitive to the disabled, there's no telling what he's capable of.  Just look at what they're doing to those AIG executives.  They don't like them so their imposing a special tax on them.  How do I know that he won't slap a 100% tax on my income because my son competes in the Special Olympics?


Olbermann:  He'll never do that as long as I'm around.  If he ever dared to try something like that we'd beat him like a red headed step child.


Harris:  Thanks Keith.  I watch your show all the time.  You're my hero.


Olbermann:  Just doing my job ma'am.


Cooper:  So how's your son, Alfred, handling all this?


Harris:  Well, Alfred doesn't understand things like you and I do but I can tell you he's deeply hurt.  After eight long years of that awful George Bush, Alfred was looking forward to an enlightened age under Obama.  After the election, Alfred put up a life-sized poster of President Obama in his room.


Cooper:  Has he said anything specifically about the President's comments?


Harris:  No, but when I went in his room this morning, the poster was gone.  I asked him why he took the poster down and he said, "Barack doesn't like me anymore."


Cooper:  Are you ok Keith?


Olbermann:  (sobbing uncontrollably)  That just tears my heart out.  I've got to get out of here.


Olbermann springs out of his chair and runs from the set.  The sound of falling equipment reverberates through the studio.


Harris:  Is everything alright there?


Cooper:  I think you better take care of your son, Mrs. Harris.  Thanks again for joining us and if it means anything to you, I'm sorry that my past support of the President has indirectly brought so much pain to you and your family.  Now let's go to our expert panel.  Joining us here on this special report are former presidential advisor David Gergen, national political activist, the Reverend Al Sharpton, Massachusetts Congressman Barney Frank, and Republican Senator from Pennsylvania, Arlen Specter.  David, I'll start with you.  You worked in the White House.  What's the political fallout from these comments?


Gergen:  It's huge, Anderson.  I mean you can't pick on the innocent victims in our society and just expect to walk away Scot-free.  But I can I point out something else I haven't heard discussed on your show and the live coverage on CBS, NBC, ABC, MSNBC, Fox, and PBS?


Cooper:  Please do.


Gergen:  Lost in all the outrage is Obama's admission that he's been spending time practicing bowling.  Now we already know from earlier reports that the President spends a significant amount of time working out with weights.


Frank:  Yea, look at his rock-hard bod.


Gergen:  Ok.  So as I was saying, he's spending a lot of time working out and now we find out he's spending more time bowling.  When does this guy have time to attend to the people's business?


Cooper:  That's a good point.  I would have never thought of it.


Gergen:  Back when General Eisenhower was president, he took a lot of criticism for his golfing.  There was a bumper sticker that said, "Ben Hogan for President.  If we're going to have a golfer for President, at least let's have a good one."  Now of course that's just a bumper sticker but the point is valid.  I think the President has really opened himself up to severe criticism as someone who doesn't take his job too seriously.


Cooper:  Thanks David.  Now let's go to the Reverend Sharpton.


Sharpton:  Anderson, let me tell you something.  I've been to these games these wonderful people are having and I just can't believe President Obama could harbor such vile thoughts.  People of all races and creeds gather together to celebrate their disabilities and here's this man of privilege putting them down. 


Cooper:  What do you think we need to do about it?


Sharpton:  We're already doing something about.  Even as we speak, my attorneys are drawing up a civil rights lawsuit that we intend to file in federal district court in Los Angeles tomorrow morning.


Cooper:  Excuse me Al.  I don't see how this is a civil rights issue.


Sharpton:  Of course you don't Anderson because you're so white you're practically an albino.  These disabled people are the lowest of the low and they need our help.  I know all about being on the bottom.  I know all about the privileged and being enslaved and...


Cooper:  We're pressed for time on this segment Al.  What damages are you seeking?


Sharpton:  We're asking for $500 million dollars.


Cooper:  What are you going to do with it?  Give it to the disabled?


Sharpton:  No even better than that.  We're going to put in a fund, to be administered by us, for, as the lawyers say, an as yet to be defined program to benefit, in a currently unspecified manner, the disabled.


Cooper:  Well good luck with that.  Let's go to Congressman Frank.  As an openly practicing homosexual, do you feel you have a common cause with the disabled?


Frank:  Absolutely.  Like the disabled, we're society's outcasts, a ready target for bullies and thugs.  And go back and watch the tape closely, Anderson.  After the President so grossly insults the disabled, what does the audience do?


Cooper:  I believe they laughed.


Frank:  Go look at it!  They laughed like crazy.  The president has a lot of influence over people.  He insults the disabled, the people laugh, and our sensitivity is torn down.  Pretty soon he'll be herding the disabled and homosexuals like cattle into camps.  Where does it end?


Cooper:  How's the caucus taking all this?


Frank:  It's exploded.  I haven't seen this many angry faces on Capitol Hill since they closed the House Post Office.  Speaker Pelosi's trying to calm the members down but I don't think that will be possible.


Cooper:  Is there anything you can do, I mean legislatively?


Frank:  Not directly but we are getting ready to pass a joint resolution of censure co-sponsored by Senator Specter and myself.  It doesn't have the force of law but it expresses the sense of outrage we all share as the friends and protectors of the most defenseless members of the public.


Cooper:  Senator Specter, tell us more about this joint resolution.


Specter:  Thank you Anderson and thank you Congressman Frank.  This resolution is a simple and straight forward condemnation of the President for his uncalled for and callous remarks on The Tonight Show on or about March 18, 2009.  In a separate resolution that I've also introduced, we're moving to take action against on the President on the grounds of delict.


Cooper:  What was that again, Senator?  Delick?  You lost me there.


Specter:  It's delict.  It's a concept from Scots law similar to torts but it differs in that in deals with a general harm inflicted instead of a specific injury.  I think we might potentially have a strong case.


Cooper:  But doesn't the President have a general immunity from prosecution under the Constitution?


Specter:  Well that's possible and we're still researching the law so I can't say anything for certain as of yet.


Frank:  Can I jump in here Anderson?  I wish Senator Specter all the best with his legal pleadings but I think there's a more direct and substantial action we can take against the President starting right now and one that I think will be taken.


Cooper:  What's that?


Frank:  After this disgusting, revolting incident, I think anything coming up to Capitol Hill with the name Obama on it is dead in the water.


Cooper:  Wow, this is huge.  Alright, we have to take a break.  Thanks gang.  This is Anderson Cooper with CNN's continuing coverage of the fallout from President Obama's insulting of society's most pitiful victims, the disabled.  We'll be right back with Cher, who while not being disabled herself, once acted in a movie about a disabled guy.



Wednesday, March 18, 2009

View from the Top: The Founding Fathers


Patrick Henry reporting


Yep, that's right.  I'm the "liberty or death" guy with the big handwriting.  Enough said, let's move on.  Over the past two hundred years it's never ceased to amaze me the ingenuity a people can display once they are freed from the shackles of an oppressive government.  Just consider all the technological advances made over that time by our people.  A journey of thousand miles passes by in hours due to the modern jet airplane.  Our committees of correspondence look childish compared to the instantaneous communications of the internet and cellular phones.  Pick any endeavor, medicine, finance, law, and you will find the mark of technological progress.


Of course, every gem has its flaws and one invention I could certainly do without is the Tele-Prompt-Ter.  Our current president relays on this device far too heavily, sometimes to his detriment.  This buffoon and his Irish cousin stupidly started to repeat the other's speeches because of an error in the operations of this machine.  I thank God that we didn't have such a device on that fateful day in the House of Burgesses although I'd like to think that I would not be such a fool as to start reading the wrong speech.  Imagine if we'd had this device and I'd read,


Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery?  Forbid it, Almighty God!  I know not course others may take; but as for me, give me pancakes or give me death!


Doesn't have the same ring to it, does it.


Now as I said, the modern world is filled with marvels, another of which is the video recorder.  How many great speeches of my day were lost forever due to our inability to record them when delivered?  Today this does not occur.  Obama's every public word and action is dutifully recorded even down to the minutia of his picks for the Final Four. But as of this writing, you can search the internet far and wide and fail to find any video of Obama making a fool of himself reading the Irish Prime Minister's speech. 


This form of self-censorship smacks of the type executed in my day in favor of the King.  To point out the King's flaws and follies was considered a form of blasphemy.  Is this the type of society, the type we risked everything to throw off, that we want?  I know not course others may take but as for me…

On the Lighter Side with Limis Ward

Obama Doggerel

(the King isn't worth trying to write real poetry)


Obama – The Destroyer

Pelosi, Steny Hoyer

Why can't you leave us alone?


Slap taxes on the rich

Then laugh while they bitch

While you all live high on the hog.


Private Air Force jets

Extravagant fetes

Just Kobe beef will do


As the rock bands play

You dance o so gay

While millions are losing their homes


When the guests go away

And the bills come for pay

How do the ledgers look?


The expenditures grow

But the revenues slow

Who's going to pay for this crap?


Send Clinton on a jet

With the Chinese she met

To beg them to lend us more dough


Mandarin digits wag

At that miserable hag

And demand guarantees for our debt.


If this was the extent

Of their ruinous bent

We might yet survive hope and change


But that's not all

From this horrid cabal

That Obama intends to unleash


Cap and trade to go green

Fossil fuels must be weaned

Fill landfills with your SUVs


Profits must go

A new day, you know

Capitalists beaten at last!


Nationalize this

A socialist bliss

Government ownerships' best


Banking, insurance

Oey! We've got tsores!

Which industry's next to fall?


How about health care

To this they will swear

Free health care for all evermore


Of course it's not free

Who pays?  You and me

For our troubles we'll wait in long lines


There's more I could say

And go on for all day

But Obama's not worth all this effort


I'll sit back and laugh

At his fuzzy math

And pray that someday this all ends


We'll pick up the pieces

And laugh at his speeches

That once drove lemmings off the cliff


Saturday, March 14, 2009

The Voice of Experience

The Devil is in the Details


Down on the Animal Farm, Obama's serfs over at the Office of Management and Budget have released a high level explanation of the King's budget for the fiscal year ending September 30, 2010, A New Era of Responsibility:  Renewing America's Promise.  The President's Budget and Fiscal Preview.  For those of you with long memories, you'll note the cover of this document is exactly the same as the King's campaign manifesto, The Blueprint for Change:  Barack Obama's Plan for America.  For someone who loves to create make-work government jobs you'd think he'd hire somebody to design a new cover.  And what's up with those interlocking curves anything?  It's probably some satanic symbol that Aleister Crowley designed.


Much of the early discussion about this worthless document has focused on a chart on page 11 which shows the share of the total income that the top one percent of taxpayers earned.  On the chart, this share increases from 10% in 1980, the last year of the Carter presidency, to 22% in 2006 at the height of the hated Bush administration.  Since this topic has been so thoroughly covered, I'll offer no comments other than to recommend reading the following fine article in the Wall Street Journal. Instead, I'd like to call you attention to what's not there, at least not in the text. 


After a few inspiring words by our leader, King Hussein Obama I, the document goes right into what surely was the most pleasurable part of the report to write, the section about how Bush screwed everything up.  On page 3, the serfs site one of the long term challenges that we face is "the trillions of dollars of debt that we inherited."  They expand this topic on page 14 under the heading Fiscal Irresponsibility.  As I noted in my last post, they make sure that they point out that Clinton was able to balance the budget, complete with a nifty chart which shows the Clinton surplus' as bars extending over the top on top of a line and the Republican presidents deficits below the line.  Left unsaid is the fact that the projected 2009 fiscal year deficit includes over eight months of the Obama presidency, the clear implication being that this deficit was "inherited" from the failed former president.


Now before you go take to the bridge, don't worry, help is on the way.  On page 34, the King's serfs note that while he's been forced to add to the national debt in the short term to fix Bush's screwed up economy he'll restore fiscal sanity by "cutting in half by the end of his first term the deficit he inherited on January 20, 2009."  This isn't the first time Obama has made this disingenuous pledge, i.e. to cut the deficit, which he helped created, of 2009 in half, but still greater than Bush's deficit in 2008, by 2012.  In fact, this pledge is the inspiration for a new diet plan I'm currently on called, appropriately, the Obama Diet.  I'm going to pig out like mad in order to gain one hundred pounds by September 30, 2009.  Then over the next four years I'll drop fifty pounds and congratulate myself about what great shape I'm in.


As noted previously, this document is intended to be a high level overview of the budget.  But the text is not bereft of numbers.  In fact, it's loaded with numerous figures and slick charts and graphs.  For example, on page 5 we learn that the number of people unemployed for 27 or more weeks has risen by 1.3 million.  On page 8 we're shocked to learn 13 million children lived in poverty in 2007.  On page 19, the King's serfs brag about the $35.9 billion he's committed for infrastructure improvements.  I could go on and on but you get the point and since Obama points out the evils of a government deficit and accumulated debt, you'd think he might mention some of these figures for his budget.  After all, on page 14, Obama's serfs dutifully note that the "amount of debt held by the public has nearly doubled to $6..4 trillion from 2001 to 2008."  For my math challenged liberal readers, half of $6.4 trillion would be $3.2 trillion and when something doubles, that would mean the increase equals the original amount or in other words, Bush added $3.2 trillion in debt over eight years.  I realize it's difficult for liberals to remember anything for longer than a minute, but try and remember these figures as we move forward.


Buried way in the back, in the section titled Summary Tables, is Table S-1. Budget Totals.  This table shows the receipts and outlays for the budget for each year up through 2019.  The King's projected deficits for 2009 through 2012 are, in trillions, $1.752, $1.171, $0.912, $0.581 for a total of $4.416 trillion which greatly exceeds Bush's eight year total of $3.2 trillion.  It looks like some poor schmuck is going to be crying about the deficit he inherited from Obama in four years. 


The table also contains a running total of the national debt held by the public, starting with the $5.803 trillion all the presidents up through and including Bush racked up.  By 2012, the national debt is projected, by Obama, to be $10,985.  By 2019, the national debt is projected to be a staggering $15.370 trillion dollars.  It must take a great deal of chutzpah to cry about some guy increasing the debt by $3.2 trillion and then project out an increase in the debt over three times that amount.


Before I leave this topic, it's worth noting that these deficits are only projections and any projection of future activity involves making assumptions about the future..  The King's serfs talk about some of these assumptions on page 36 under the sub-heading, Return to Honest Budgeting.  He notes that if he had used the "various gimmicks employed in recent (Bush's - VOE) budgets, it would show in excess of another $250 billion annually in available funds each year, and a bottom line that would appear approximately $2.6 trillion better over 10 years."  So under Obama's own numbers, instead of the national debt being $15.370 trillion in 2019 it would only be $12.77 trillion.  Well, I'm glad he cleared that up.  I feel a lot better.


Besides these accounting gimmicks, a budget also requires basic assumptions about the economy:  how fast is the economy going to grow, what's the inflation rate and unemployment rate going to be, and what are the interest rates going to be on the federal debt.  These assumptions are presented way in the back on page 132 in Table S-8. Comparison of Economic Assumptions.  The table compares Obama's assumptions to the both the Congressional Budget Office (CBO), the supposed non-partisan economists for the Congress, and the February Blue Chip Consensus (Blue Chip), which is a publication put out by a group called Blue Chip Economic Indicators.  In nearly every case, Obama's assumptions are rosier than the assumptions of the other two organizations.  For example, for the growth in real Gross Domestic Product, GDP, Obama's projections are close to the other two organizations from 2015 and on but in the crucial next three years, Obama's are significantly higher.  For 2010, Obama projects a growth rate of 3.2% while the CBO projects 1.5% and Blue Chip projects 2.1%.  For 2012, Obama projects a growth rate of 4.6% while the CBO projects 4.4% and the Blue Chip projects 2.9%.  For the inflation rate, in 2011, Obama projects 1.8% while CBO also projects 1.8% and the Blue Chip projects 2.4%.  I realize these are a lot of numbers but a clear trend seems to be emerging.  In general, Obama's economic assumptions are almost always the most favorable, especially compared to the private sector assumptions from Blue Chip.


So what you say?  What's the big deal if it's 5.4% instead of 4.5%?  When you're applying these percentages to numbers running up to the trillions of dollars it's huge.  This table doesn't include Real GDP figures but it does include Nominal GDP figures.  For 2012, there's $600 billion dollar difference between Obama's projection and the Blue Chip projection.  Assuming the government gets 20% of that in tax revenues and that's an additional $120 billion in revenue. 


Of course, Obama's not the first president to monkey with these assumptions but don't forget, the King claimed he was going to be different.  And he is different.  In a political world filled with charlatans and shady characters, Obama stands above the rest as a bold faced liar and hypocrite.  Kenya should be very proud. I realize that's a little over the top but the budget is such a dry topic that I had to try and end with a flourish.  Hopefully the next post will be a little less technical.  Maybe I'll talk about how the King's ears grow when he lies.

Editor's Note

In the recent post, General Burnside Rides Again!, near the end of the post the word should be "reality" not "realty".  Sorry to all my liberal readers whose pulses quickened on thoughts of another tangible asset they could tax and I hope all my conservative friends got a good laugh. - VOE

Thursday, March 12, 2009

The Voice of Experience

General Burnside Rides Again!


For such a flamboyant guy, King Hussein Obama the First's signing of the omnibus spending bill to fund governmental operations for the remainder of the fiscal year was a rather lackluster affair. Like an alcoholic that hides in his room as he polishes off another fifth of vodka, Obama signed away another $410 billion we don't have in the privacy of the Oval Office.  And then, once the buzz from spending all that money wore off, the King felt guilty, complaining that it was an "imperfect bill."  Obama was referring to the 7,991 earmarks in the bill costing $5.5 billion dollars, a figure far in excess of the pledge he made in the campaign to roll earmarks back to 2001 levels.  I'm not surprised the King broke his promise because we've all heard alcoholics say they'd never have another drink again a million times.  If Limis is out there reading this article maybe his next post will be about a new support group, Liberals Anonymous.  I'll even start it for him, "I'm Barney Frank and I'm a liberal."


As I sit here and watch Obama spend trillions of dollars we don't have, I can't help but think that for somebody who's so smart, the King does some really stupid things.  Naturally, the King's loyal supporters in the media think he's executing a clever strategy, slamming through as much of his program as possible before the ignorant masses (that's you) turn on him.  Needless to say, if these liberals in the media were so smart you'd think they turn their brilliant analytical minds to figuring out a way to save their jobs but I guess that would make too much sense.  Like Obama, these liberal fools like to think they're clever, to use an outdated phase; "thinking outside the box" but in fact they're in the box, about to be lowered into the grave.


Now that it's too late to use, I'll spell out a strategy the King could have used to bury the Republicans for a generation.  Think back for a minute to election night, if you can without getting ill, to the victory Obama and his minions achieved.  Obama crushed McCain in the Electoral College vote, taking southern Republican strongholds of Virginia and North Carolina and taking all three of the crucial swing states of Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.  The Democrats nearly won a filibuster proof Senate, taking 58 seats.  In the House, the Democrats increased their majority to by 22 seats for a total of 257.  And don't forget this election followed the successful election of 2006 where the Democrats took back both houses of Congress.  In short, the Republicans were lying prostrate at Obama's feet.


So what brought this disaster upon the Republicans?  To be sure there were many factors but many conservatives, including myself, point to one in particular:  the failure of the Republicans to live up to their pledge of fiscal responsibility.  Ever since Reagan, the cornerstone of the Republican message has been the promise to balance the federal budget.  Unfortunately the last Republican president to balance the federal budget was Eisenhower.  Both Bushes and Reagan himself failed to achieve this goal.  In fact the only president to balance the budget since Eisenhower was Bill Clinton, a fact that Democrats pointed out adnouseum to devastating effect in the last two elections. 


Just imagine for a second that Obama had restrained himself upon assuming the Presidency.  Instead of engaging in an orgy of deficit spending, he'd urged fiscal restraint.  He could have still soaked it to the rich and passed numerous unfunded mandates to achieve his liberal goals but if the end result was a balanced budget or a deficit significantly less than Bush's, think what a weapon he'd have forged.  No Republican for a generation could have credibly run for office claiming that his party was the party of fiscal restraint and balanced budgets.  He would have literally stolen a cornerstone Republican principle, one that is immensely popular, and made it a Democratic principle.  By taking the opposite approach, all Obama has done is reinforce the old Republican charge that Democrats are nothing but "tax and spend" liberals.  By submitting a budget that calls for trillion dollars deficits for the each of the next four years, Obama has opened himself up to this devastating attack in 2010.


King Hussein Obama the First loves to think of himself as another Lincoln but as a strategist he's more like one of Lincoln's failed generals, Ambrose Burnside.  Like Burnside at Fredricksburg, instead of redeploying his forces or attacking at another part of the battlefield, Obama sends wave after wave of his stupid liberal ideas up the unconquerable hill only to be mowed down by the stone wall of realty.  Obama's ideas will fail because the liberal ideas he holds have always failed.  You cannot become rich by discouraging the accumulation of wealth.  You cannot provide free health care without somebody paying the bill.  And you cannot make our enemies friends simply by talking to them. 


After the Battle of Fredericksburg, Burnside offered to resign his commission.  To bad Obama doesn't have such a sense of honor and responsibility.

Wednesday, March 11, 2009

The Righteous Lib

And Yet It Moves.


Score another victory for my man Barack with his lifting of the ban on federal funding for embryonic stem cell research. You'd think with the whole country going down the crapper because of that idiot Dubya that Barack wouldn't have time to focus on this issue but, as this decision shows, Barack's a true Renaissance man.  Hell, he's a Superman, by day saving the economy and by night, advancing science to save mankind.


As you might expect, the flat-earthers, the residue Dubya left behind in Washington, is all over my man on this one.  They're always claiming they're so holy (even though half of them are out trying to pick up dudes in airport bathrooms) so it shouldn't shock anyone that like the Catholic bishops that silenced Galileo, they'd be against science.  They don't give a damn if some poor working stiff has to spend the rest of his life in a wheelchair.  They'd rather save some embryo that ain't even a person yet.  They're so ignorant that they wouldn't even know an embryo if they saw on lying on the floor.  They'd probably call the servant to "clean up this mess."


Now you gotta watch these Republicans all the time because for being so stupid they can be pretty clever sometimes.  I was watching one of those Sunday talking head shows down at the shelter and one of these Republicans, sporting an Armani suit, a crew cut, and a thin nose (he looked a lizard to me, brah) was pointing out that Bush only banned federal funding of embryonic stem cell research.  Anyone was free to engage in this research provided it was paid with non-Federal dollars.  I'm sure a lot of idiots fell for that one but not me man.  Like who has that kind of money lying around to pay for all those high priced scientists and test tubes.  Bill Gates?  Come on, California tried to do the right thing and fund this research and look what happened to them:  they're busted.  California's problems are just one more failure to hang on Dubya.


During the dark ages prior to Barack's election, I felt bad for these scientists because I knew just how they felt.  When I want a drink, I'll ask somebody on the street to hook me up with a few bucks.  How else am I going to get that drink if someone doesn't help me out?  What am I supposed to do, get a job and pay for it myself?  That's ridiculous.  I'm too busy to get a job right now.


And as for money, I'm sure that's the real reason these cheap-ass, flat earthers are really against embryonic stem cell research.  They're afraid Barack's going to spend all their money and they'll have to cut back to only one vacation home or sell the yacht.  Well guess what Republicans, Barack is spending your money like mad and I love it.  He's having a good time doing it too, just like I would, partying all the time and chowing down on imported beef from Japan at $100 a pound.  So my advice to you, Mr. Republican, is to keep that checkbook close because Barack's scientists ain't cheap.

Saturday, March 7, 2009

The Voice of Experience

Hoisted By His Own Picard


The community in cyberspace is all abuzz over the video of Jon Stewart from Comedy Central's The Daily Show, savagely attacking CNBC's Rick Santielli and the network's shortcomings as a financial prognosticator.

It's certainly not my purpose to defend CNBC but I think it's worth noting that by its very nature, financial advice of the type offered by organizations such as CNBC does not carry with it the exactness of a mathematical proof.  If all financial advice was 100% accurate nobody would ever loss a dime in the markets and I defy the brilliant researchers of The Daily Show to find anybody who accurately predicted the current crisis.  But that being said, I'd like to call attention to Stewart's particularly vicious implication that CNBC, which has unrivaled access to the financial movers and shakers of the world, was somehow complicit in their failures by not asking these people tough questions.  We all laugh as Stewart shows video of CNBC reporters asking CEO Rick Wagnoner of the troubled automaker General Motors about Kid Rock's performance at a GM Style Event or asking financial advisor Sir Allen Stanford, who was subsequently shown to be running a Ponzi scheme, this softball question, "Is it fun being a billionaire?'


Of course, the writers for The Daily Show were able to put together this bit due to the vast wealth of video available on the internet of CNBC interviews.  But Stewart and his show have also left a trail of video out in cyberspace that some other smart ass, like me, can probe for his failings.  And sure enough, it only took about five minutes to find.


On August 23, 2007, presidential candidate Barack Obama was a guest on the The Daily Show. Now certainly a man who could be the leader of the free world and weld more power than all the financial wizards interviewed by CNBC combined surely deserves some critical examination.  And don't forget, even then, King Hussein Obama I didn't sit down for an interview with just anybody.  Throughout the whole campaign, our current King boycotted the entire Fox Network, save an interview with Bill O'Reilly which only took place after negotiations worthy of the SALT treaties.  So by agreeing to this interview, Stewart was gaining access to a man that was inaccessible to many.


Stewart started the interview with this tough one:


The effect you have on a crowd is unusual, there's an inspirational quality.  Is that something American is going to go for?


Way to go Jon, that's really nailing him to the wall..  It gets better.  Here's the next one:


The process of picking a candidate is so insane.  Has the insanity of this process sunk in on you yet?


Without his security blanket, i.e. Tele-Promp-Ter, handy, Obama blathered on about the debates and how they weren't really about a serious exchange of issues and then he dropped this bomb.


Obama:  So much of what we talk about, so much of what we say, it's not true, people know it's not true, all the insiders understand that we're just game playing and in the meantime we've got these serious problems, which are true.


When I first saw this I was blown away.  Was Obama admitting that he was a liar?  Or was he saying all the other politicians were liars but he was telling the truth?  Who knew, but the one thing I was sure of was that Stewart, that relentless pursuer of the truth, would pounce all over this statement.  His next question was a gem:


Do you feel you're stuck in a narrative now and the narrative is:, Hillary is experienced but unlikable and Obama is inexperienced but brings change.  


Wow, what a follow up question!  I bet the King was really sweating over that one.


Further on in the interview, in response to yet another ridiculously soft question, Obama talked about how much criticism he took over his comments about Pakistan.  And just in case the stupid liberals in The Daily Show audience had forgotten what the whole stink about Pakistan was, the King took the time to tell them.  He complained that his comment that it was wrong to use nuclear weapons against terrorist camps in Pakistan was unfairly attacked but that once people thought about it they realized he was right.


Now as indefatigable monitor of current events, I'm sure Jon Stewart was aware that the whole stink about Pakistan actually concerned Obama's comments that the U.S. should invade Pakistan if necessary to pursue a-Qaida terrorists, a completely different matter.  So how did Mr. Stewart respond to this obvious lie from a man who but moments earlier basically admitted to being a liar?


With the experience thing (i.e., his lack of it) have you thought about running a smaller country first?


After this rigorous grilling, I'm sure you, like I, thought that Obama would never go on The Daily Show again but you would be wrong.  On October 29, 2008, just days before the election, King Hussein Obama I granted another audience to Jon Stewart, this time via satellite from Florida.  By this time of course, Obama had a comfortable lead in the polls and Stewart wasn't going to do anything to change that.  Most of the questions are so inane that they're not even worth mentioning.  Stewart asked the King things like:


I thought you'd be playing a four corner offence, but you're really going at it.  Tell us about this infomercial (Obama's campaign would run a half hour campaign commercial that evening on network television).

Will it annoy us?

Can you and McCain like each other after the campaign?

With the kind of issues that face the country now, is there a sense that you don't want this?


Unlike CNBC, which makes predictions and faces the consequences when they don't pan out, critics like Stewart generally don't take positions on the issues.  Without offering anything of substances, they stand on the sidelines and laugh and ridicule.  With his soft-ball coddling and open endorsement of Obama, Stewart has crossed the line from sideline buffoon to political advocate and it's only fair that he is held accountable for the King's reign.  Perhaps in two to three years, when unemployment is over 10%, the country is mired in a deep recession, and we're a laughing stock in the international community, someone will dig up all the pro-Obama comments of Stewart and interpose them with the miserable headlines of that day and see how he likes it.


By the way, before we leave this topic, at the end of the second interview Obama revealed perhaps more than he intended to with this comment:


We tend to be a pretty conservative country, I don't mean conservative politically per se but conservative in the sense that things are going along pretty well and we don't want to mess with it too much.  And then every once in awhile we have these big challenges and big problems and it gives an opportunity for us to really move in a new direction.  I think this is one of those moments on things like energy and healthcare and the economy and education where I think that people recognize that what we've been doing isn't working and that means people are going to be more open to change.


Remember that one next time Obama's talking down the economy.